You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
But that's exactly what the gay activists are doing. What about polygamous couples? They're still limited. "But marriage is between two people".. sounds an awful lot like "but marriage is between a man and a woman". It limits the privilege. Unless you want it to be not limited at all (incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc) but I haven't heard anyone putting that forward.
Being married isn't a right, it's a privilege.
A privilege that gay activists seem to want without extending it past themselves to other groups who are excluded from it also.
Talking butterfly effect kind of stuff here, we are all connected, we do not live in a closed system. You could do things that support them even without your knowledge. Would you look at what stock he's invested in and purposefully try to harm those companies through boycotts because purchasing from them would support him?
where do you draw the line?
So long as he doesn't bring it up at work, he gives you a job, you do the job. Politics and personal affairs stay at home. Not a problem.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
A lot of people tend to consider discrimination the using of criteria irrelevant to the problem (like being a certain ethnicity/sex does not mean you are better/worse for the job.. except where it does, like the job of a prostitute catering to heterosexual men). The mans political views do not come into play at work, so he is being discriminated against unfairly.
A lot of slashdotters are problem solvers that really dislike problem criteria that are really quite irrelevant. Does the fact he personally supports homosexuals not being able to marry affect his technical management of a browser? Not really.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.
Bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
He holds a different view to them, they were intolerant of his view, enough so to demand his dismissal over something entirely not work related and that had not affected his work in the slightest.
How is this not bigotry?
No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.
Liberal: 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
I'm not sure if not respecting others differing opinions can come under "liberal" in fact I think it's quite the opposite.
This is a man who took a high-profile job and was outed as a bigot.
Definition of bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
He could plenty well be tolerant of those who have different opinions than his own, he can think gay marriage shouldn't be a thing while respecting that others disagree.
A man who thinks that it's worth paying money to impose his opinions one where someone else sticks their dick.
Can you tell me where he said that nobody should be allowed to be gay? Or are you just making things up and assuming things?
A man who doesn't believe that gay people are people.
Again, citation please? or is this another assumption?
That's not rhetoric, that's the way it is.
It is rhetoric, because you know nothing at all about the situation and are trying to paint an extremely hateful image of a person simply from them thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Being against gay marriage is almost always on the grounds that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", directly indicating that any other coupling is wrong and bad, and that those who engage in such practices should be penalized by being denied the same rights hetero-married enjoy.
Did he say that? or are you assuming this again? It is quite possible to think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed while simultaneously harbouring no ill will towards homosexuals, not caring who couples with who but caring about marriage.
Modern, enlightened society caught up with this guy when he took a job with visibility.
More like the bigoted (in the sense of not tolerating people with different views) left-wing hate machine found him when he took up a job with visibility.
You shouldn't assume so many things about him, when you do so you create a straw man.
There's a difference between not supporting a cause, and actively sabotaging unrelated things because of a persons political affiliation/beliefs.
One results in discussion and peaceful protest. The other results in "You can't work here because you campaigned for x" even if it's just a manufacturing job.
What happens when the latter gets the majority? Similar deal as to 'voluntary segregation' back in the old days, no need for laws to get their will done, those wielding the social power just make life difficult/impossible for anyone that doesn't agree with them.
If a left-wing person had everyone around them refuse to hire/work for them because of a political belief they hold, they'd cry murder. But when the tables are turned, it seems to be perfectly fine..
"intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."
From other commenters here.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
It is bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry, and pretty hypocritical at that.
Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.
Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.
If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?
That software can even be patented at all is ridiculous.
If I find a nice project that what I want.. but then I hit a bug, I then proceed to debug it until it is fixed (depending on complexity) then send a but report attaching the patch.
Nice and otherwise useful programs can have show-stopping bugs in edge cases sometimes. It's worth my while to fix the edge cases if they hit me to get the functionality I want back up and working as intended.
For the most part I'd advocate avoiding unnecessary interference. Let people be people. There are feminists out there who believe we should engineer society to be a certain way, and I'd disagree with that.
In regards to helping people in poor economic circumstances, I'd advocate not discriminating by race, do it by need. If one race happens to be more disadvantaged than another they can get help, but I do not see race-based advantages and laws working at all. In some cases they can even prove a detriment to the very groups they were made to help.
For the most part, I don't give a damn what other people want to do. It's none of my business. However when people interfere with something I'm involved in entirely on the premise of race or sex.. then I have issue. In regards to people who just want to get out there and get a job done, the only time feminism would appear is when it is causing unnecessary issues from possibly over-sensitive people.
The most reasonable feminists I see tend to rather be egalitarians than feminists. Funnily enough I'd consider trying to equate 'fair' with 'feminine' as slightly sexist itself.
Your friends, do they support affirmative action? If so to what level do you think they would find acceptable? Do you think sexism in the name of reducing sexism is a good idea?
Egalitarianism has troubles too, it can conflict with meritocracy (and meritocracy has it's own issues also).
The kinds of feminists I know are the sort that go to rallies and whose facebook feeds are a trove of propaganda. They mean well, but the intellectual dishonesty in their means of achieving their goals can aggravate at times.
The problem I find with well meaning and otherwise nice people feminists I've encountered, tends to be.
1. Having a very female-centric view of things at times.
2. Having a very oversimplified view of both history and the nature of human interaction.
3. Using these to form very pro-female policies without consideration of how it affects others than the target group.
We see people advocating effectively banning males from positions etc, which of course ran afoul of the sexual discrimination act 1975.. so what did they do? amend the act do it was ok to discriminate by sex so long as it was men who were being barred from positions.
Preaching equality is nice and all, but a lot of people here go by practical actions we have seen, and the public face of feminism is what people visibly do under it's name. Unfortunately a lot of nasty shit can be justified by some people under the name of 'equality'. I honestly think that the majority believe they are being good people, and doing the 'right' thing, there is just no consideration of the other groups they are affecting.
And to get everything in focus at that level of detail you need a _very_ flat subject, or to have everything you want at the infinity focus level.
The depth of field (area that is in acceptable focus) decreases as required detail goes up, not to mention that if you up the required detail enough you wind up being forced to use a larger aperture otherwise diffraction effects will be the limiting factor.. using a larger aperture decreases the depth of field even more.
There are real practical limits for getting serious detail, unless your subject is completely flat and/or it's all at infinity focus.
It's the same problem large format photographers have had for ages, a surplus of detail at the sensor (film) level, but never enough depth of field to use it all.
Enforcing gender roles (saying a person cannot do x/y/z) is silly, however letting people choose their own path can be good. There is a tendency to go towards typical roles, because on average men and women are better at different things.
People gravitate towards things they are good at in general. With such different brain structures (men having seven times the gray matter of women, and women having ten times as much white matter) come different aptitudes, and different ways of applying that aptitude to a given problem.
While it is true that seagate does hybrids at the block level so it is transparent, linux hit some bugs in the hard drives firmware that windows did not quite some time ago, and the results weren't so pretty. That was a few years ago though hopefully they have it sorted by now.
If there's a material and measurable harm to one group
So because society doesn't value the types of jobs women ten o gravitate towards in general we must make their pay even because capitalism and getting paid as a function of demand and perceived worth doesn't work? Suckier jobs that need to be done pay more, news at 11.
Just because the overall numbers swing in mens favour of earnings doesn't necessarily mean society wide sexism is going on. People could just be different and expecting everything to be 50% down the line is silly.
why are you against righting that wrong?
Because you aren't righting any wrong, you are guaranteeing new ones.
When "actually try" doesn't work, what do we try next?
Just keep on trying, it is all you can do. Implementing systematic injustice because some people let criteria irrelevant to the task get in the way sometimes is idiotic, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, and those "generalizations" are illegal discrimination when applied to gender, but not education level.
Only when being used as criteria for a task where it is not necessarily so. When you make criteria you use the _actual_ value, the one that matters. I can say that on average men are physically stronger than women and that is fine. If I have a job that requires lifting a certain amount of relatively heavy weight of course I'd wind up finding more males as suitable applicants, but so long as their ability to do the job is what is being assessed and not other things having more male employees than female in that context isn't sexism, just happened that one demographic had more people suited to the task.
They exist and are legal,
And so is paying women more than men for the same job, both of these injustices are legal, I propose we endeavour to end both.
monumentally stupid to end the support of the most disadvantaged while not ending the support of the most advantaged. End the white AA (legacy), and then we'll talk.
As I said before, I support ending that also. The same argument is used for both, that it is using criteria irrelevant to the task and so should be stopped
If you support ending the legacy items, you should support ending affirmative action also.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't oppose certain rights only for members of a certain group and not be against that group in effect, even if you believe so with all your heart.
But that's exactly what the gay activists are doing. What about polygamous couples? They're still limited. "But marriage is between two people" .. sounds an awful lot like "but marriage is between a man and a woman". It limits the privilege. Unless you want it to be not limited at all (incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc) but I haven't heard anyone putting that forward.
Being married isn't a right, it's a privilege.
A privilege that gay activists seem to want without extending it past themselves to other groups who are excluded from it also.
How indirect do you want to go?
Talking butterfly effect kind of stuff here, we are all connected, we do not live in a closed system. You could do things that support them even without your knowledge. Would you look at what stock he's invested in and purposefully try to harm those companies through boycotts because purchasing from them would support him?
where do you draw the line?
So long as he doesn't bring it up at work, he gives you a job, you do the job. Politics and personal affairs stay at home. Not a problem.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
A lot of people tend to consider discrimination the using of criteria irrelevant to the problem (like being a certain ethnicity/sex does not mean you are better/worse for the job.. except where it does, like the job of a prostitute catering to heterosexual men). The mans political views do not come into play at work, so he is being discriminated against unfairly.
A lot of slashdotters are problem solvers that really dislike problem criteria that are really quite irrelevant. Does the fact he personally supports homosexuals not being able to marry affect his technical management of a browser? Not really.
From another /. post
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
From another post on the topic.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
It's not bigotry. It's a boycott against what is tantamount to hypocrisy.
Bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
He holds a different view to them, they were intolerant of his view, enough so to demand his dismissal over something entirely not work related and that had not affected his work in the slightest.
How is this not bigotry?
No, it says that organizations like Mozilla, that pride themselves in being very socially liberal and freedom/privacy focused should look more closely at the people they're thinking of giving the very public title of CEO, and not pick people with very public stances that are antithetical to that of the organization.
Liberal: 1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
I'm not sure if not respecting others differing opinions can come under "liberal" in fact I think it's quite the opposite.
This is a man who took a high-profile job and was outed as a bigot.
Definition of bigotry: 1. intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
He could plenty well be tolerant of those who have different opinions than his own, he can think gay marriage shouldn't be a thing while respecting that others disagree.
A man who thinks that it's worth paying money to impose his opinions one where someone else sticks their dick.
Can you tell me where he said that nobody should be allowed to be gay? Or are you just making things up and assuming things?
A man who doesn't believe that gay people are people.
Again, citation please? or is this another assumption?
That's not rhetoric, that's the way it is.
It is rhetoric, because you know nothing at all about the situation and are trying to paint an extremely hateful image of a person simply from them thinking marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Being against gay marriage is almost always on the grounds that "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman", directly indicating that any other coupling is wrong and bad, and that those who engage in such practices should be penalized by being denied the same rights hetero-married enjoy.
Did he say that? or are you assuming this again? It is quite possible to think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed while simultaneously harbouring no ill will towards homosexuals, not caring who couples with who but caring about marriage.
Modern, enlightened society caught up with this guy when he took a job with visibility.
More like the bigoted (in the sense of not tolerating people with different views) left-wing hate machine found him when he took up a job with visibility.
You shouldn't assume so many things about him, when you do so you create a straw man.
There's a difference between not supporting a cause, and actively sabotaging unrelated things because of a persons political affiliation/beliefs.
One results in discussion and peaceful protest. The other results in "You can't work here because you campaigned for x" even if it's just a manufacturing job.
What happens when the latter gets the majority? Similar deal as to 'voluntary segregation' back in the old days, no need for laws to get their will done, those wielding the social power just make life difficult/impossible for anyone that doesn't agree with them.
If a left-wing person had everyone around them refuse to hire/work for them because of a political belief they hold, they'd cry murder. But when the tables are turned, it seems to be perfectly fine..
Except he was actively trying to deny peoples rights.
Where does this "right to be able to get married" come from? Here I thought it was a privilege, with conditions.
the definition of bigotry
"intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself."
From other commenters here.
"Well, the problem isn't so much the freedom as the principle. People want to do something that a huge number of people consider controversial. Someone uses their democratic right and votes against it. A different group of people publicly lynch that someone for taking an opposing view. It's unhealthy to society for people who hold opposing views to be crucified. It's uncivil and counter-productive."
"Tolerance doesn't mean tolerating only those who tolerate you. Tolerance means also tolerating those who don't tolerate you. If you live by the former, then you believe the Black Panthers were right, and Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. were wrong. The former leads to all-out war. The latter leads to coexistence. When Prop 8 passed, I didn't rub it in the faces of my gay friends. I encouraged them to not lose hope and to continue fighting for what they believed in, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Everyone gets their (thorough) say before society as a whole decides what to do, and the losers (usually the minority, though in Prop 8's case it was the majority) agree to live with the outcome without resorting to violence, while the winners do not resort to outbursts of Schadenfreude.
Skin-heads aren't bad because they think Jews and blacks are inferior and bad for society. They're bad because they think this justifies eliminating Jews and blacks from society - removing their influence from the socio-political fabric which makes up our society. Kinda like how Eich was eliminated. The supporters of Prop 8 at least had the decency to push their viewpoint through legislative channels, giving the electorate a chance to vote on the issue, and allowing the courts to weigh in on the outcome (eventually overturning the vote). What happened to Eich was a lynch mob-like naming and shaming. The whole reason we came up with formal government systems was because at some point we decided gossip and hearsay were a poor means to run society. Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the Internet is that it gives more power to gossip and hearsay. "
It is bigotry to be intolerant of bigotry, and pretty hypocritical at that.
Actually it speaks volumes. It's a thing of "get the job done, if niceties get in the way, prioritize the job over niceties" kind of thinking.
And it can function quite well, or not, depending on the situation.
I'm not sure whether I'd consider being willing to go the extra mile in competition adolescent or not, more.. determined.
Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.
Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.
If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?
That software can even be patented at all is ridiculous.
Not really
If I find a nice project that what I want.. but then I hit a bug, I then proceed to debug it until it is fixed (depending on complexity) then send a but report attaching the patch.
Nice and otherwise useful programs can have show-stopping bugs in edge cases sometimes. It's worth my while to fix the edge cases if they hit me to get the functionality I want back up and working as intended.
For the most part I'd advocate avoiding unnecessary interference. Let people be people. There are feminists out there who believe we should engineer society to be a certain way, and I'd disagree with that.
In regards to helping people in poor economic circumstances, I'd advocate not discriminating by race, do it by need. If one race happens to be more disadvantaged than another they can get help, but I do not see race-based advantages and laws working at all. In some cases they can even prove a detriment to the very groups they were made to help.
For the most part, I don't give a damn what other people want to do. It's none of my business. However when people interfere with something I'm involved in entirely on the premise of race or sex.. then I have issue. In regards to people who just want to get out there and get a job done, the only time feminism would appear is when it is causing unnecessary issues from possibly over-sensitive people.
The most reasonable feminists I see tend to rather be egalitarians than feminists. Funnily enough I'd consider trying to equate 'fair' with 'feminine' as slightly sexist itself.
Your friends, do they support affirmative action? If so to what level do you think they would find acceptable? Do you think sexism in the name of reducing sexism is a good idea?
Egalitarianism has troubles too, it can conflict with meritocracy (and meritocracy has it's own issues also).
The kinds of feminists I know are the sort that go to rallies and whose facebook feeds are a trove of propaganda. They mean well, but the intellectual dishonesty in their means of achieving their goals can aggravate at times.
The problem I find with well meaning and otherwise nice people feminists I've encountered, tends to be.
1. Having a very female-centric view of things at times.
2. Having a very oversimplified view of both history and the nature of human interaction.
3. Using these to form very pro-female policies without consideration of how it affects others than the target group.
We see people advocating effectively banning males from positions etc, which of course ran afoul of the sexual discrimination act 1975.. so what did they do? amend the act do it was ok to discriminate by sex so long as it was men who were being barred from positions.
Preaching equality is nice and all, but a lot of people here go by practical actions we have seen, and the public face of feminism is what people visibly do under it's name. Unfortunately a lot of nasty shit can be justified by some people under the name of 'equality'. I honestly think that the majority believe they are being good people, and doing the 'right' thing, there is just no consideration of the other groups they are affecting.
As for there is being difference in reaction to a man hitting a woman to a woman hitting a man. This video is an example of that kind of thing
Everyone does it... the main difference is they were caught.
Which oscilloscope?
And to get everything in focus at that level of detail you need a _very_ flat subject, or to have everything you want at the infinity focus level.
The depth of field (area that is in acceptable focus) decreases as required detail goes up, not to mention that if you up the required detail enough you wind up being forced to use a larger aperture otherwise diffraction effects will be the limiting factor.. using a larger aperture decreases the depth of field even more.
There are real practical limits for getting serious detail, unless your subject is completely flat and/or it's all at infinity focus.
It's the same problem large format photographers have had for ages, a surplus of detail at the sensor (film) level, but never enough depth of field to use it all.
My nas machine has been running fedora since f12, five drives with /boot mirrored on all of them, not a problem upgrading.
Enforcing gender roles (saying a person cannot do x/y/z) is silly, however letting people choose their own path can be good. There is a tendency to go towards typical roles, because on average men and women are better at different things.
People gravitate towards things they are good at in general. With such different brain structures (men having seven times the gray matter of women, and women having ten times as much white matter) come different aptitudes, and different ways of applying that aptitude to a given problem.
They _export_ to jpeg. The working file never sees release. The working file is what would be in psd (or if you use gimp xcf).
Just like when they author blu-rays, the working file would be some form of lossless, end result h264, you never see the working file.
While it is true that seagate does hybrids at the block level so it is transparent, linux hit some bugs in the hard drives firmware that windows did not quite some time ago, and the results weren't so pretty. That was a few years ago though hopefully they have it sorted by now.
If there's a material and measurable harm to one group
So because society doesn't value the types of jobs women ten o gravitate towards in general we must make their pay even because capitalism and getting paid as a function of demand and perceived worth doesn't work? Suckier jobs that need to be done pay more, news at 11.
Just because the overall numbers swing in mens favour of earnings doesn't necessarily mean society wide sexism is going on. People could just be different and expecting everything to be 50% down the line is silly.
why are you against righting that wrong?
Because you aren't righting any wrong, you are guaranteeing new ones.
When "actually try" doesn't work, what do we try next?
Just keep on trying, it is all you can do. Implementing systematic injustice because some people let criteria irrelevant to the task get in the way sometimes is idiotic, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, and those "generalizations" are illegal discrimination when applied to gender, but not education level.
Only when being used as criteria for a task where it is not necessarily so. When you make criteria you use the _actual_ value, the one that matters. I can say that on average men are physically stronger than women and that is fine. If I have a job that requires lifting a certain amount of relatively heavy weight of course I'd wind up finding more males as suitable applicants, but so long as their ability to do the job is what is being assessed and not other things having more male employees than female in that context isn't sexism, just happened that one demographic had more people suited to the task.
They exist and are legal,
And so is paying women more than men for the same job, both of these injustices are legal, I propose we endeavour to end both.
monumentally stupid to end the support of the most disadvantaged while not ending the support of the most advantaged. End the white AA (legacy), and then we'll talk.
As I said before, I support ending that also. The same argument is used for both, that it is using criteria irrelevant to the task and so should be stopped
If you support ending the legacy items, you should support ending affirmative action also.