An editorial from the LA Times says it's vital for other cities nearby to increase their minimum wage, too, else businesses will gradually migrate to cheaper locations.
Even if the surrounding cities don't raise their minimum wage levels, businesses in those cities will have to start paying their hourly employees more because of increased hourly wages in nearby Los Angeles. Why would I work at McDonald's for $8/hr in a suburb when I could drive an extra 10 minutes and make $15/hr at a McDonald's in L.A.? Answer: I wouldn't. Ergo the McDonald's in the burbs will have to offer a wage that at least approaches the current L.A. wage or it will struggle to hire staff.
Seriously? You're going to claim that RoK explicitly confirming the diametric opposition of the MRM and PUA ideologies is somehow proof that RoK is part of the MRM instead of opposed to it?
First off, RoK doesn't explicitly reject PUA. It rejects MRM, but in rejecting the MRM it seems to define the movement differently than how those in that movement would define it. So RoK is distancing itself from something, perhaps certain segments of the MRM, but not the MRM as a whole.
What about the reverse? Would most guys in the MRM be shocked and horrified if they read a random sampling of articles from RoK?
Not exactly. I still think the term is used exclusively pejoratively by active participants in the
"man-o-sphere". However, I'm not willing to say 100% of them rise to the level of douchebag. The vast majority do.
Is RoK solely a PUA blog? Doesn't seem to be. The wikipedia page on the "Men's Rights Movement" lists RoK as a "site dedicated to men's rights issues". And no I didn't just edit it. So we've got:
1. RoK founded by a guy (RooshV) who is closely tied to the PUA community.
2. Wikipedia calling RoK a "site dedicated to men's rights issues".
3. RoK making no mention of PUA in its rather lengthy "About" section.
4. RoK explicitly disassociating itself from the MRM, but only by redefining the MRM in a way that's not entirely accurate.
To the extent it makes sense to draw a line between the MRM and RoK, though, I'll modify my claim: "There is significant overlap between those who share the stated goals of RoK, which have nothing to do with PUA, and the PUA community."
Doesn't seem to explain the full biblical account. The voices he heard, for one, but also the claim that the "scales fell off his eyes" immediately after he was prayed for by Annanias. Of course you could argue those bits are fictional. The fact remains, though, that Saul was already "religious" prior to his experience on the road to Damascus.
I'm thick. How is Clarey distancing himself from the Men's Rights' movement proof of there being no significant overlap between the Men's Rights' and Seduction communities? To be fair, I may have mis-used the terms "Men's Rights'" when referring to folks like Clarey and, by extension, blogs like Return of Kings, since they (and it) explicitly reject that label. So I'll amend my position to be, "There is significant overlap between {men who strongly identify with the point of view of blogs like Return of Kings} and the pick-up artist community." That is, I would expect the average PUA community member to be highly sympathetic to the views expressed on Return of Kings.
It doesn't make any sense to complain the term is pejorative. Any term those of us who find Social Justice Warriors repugnant uses to describe them will be pejorative, just as "liberal" is to a conservative or vice-versa.
I'm not complaining about the fact that it's pejorative. I was responding in disagreement to another poster who claimed it is not pejorative. "Liberal" isn't per se pejorative because it is frequently used in a non-pejorative sense. Liberals call themselves "liberals", for instance. "SJW", on the other hand, is almost exclusively used by folks who mean to evoke a connotation of contempt and/or disapproval. Which is pretty much exactly the definition of "pejorative".
There is no single metric, true. But there are guidelines. We can look at Harvard's student body and objectively derive a profile based on numerically quantifiable traits (SAT scores + class rank). For instance, if 95% of Harvard undergrads scored above X on the SAT and 95% of Harvard undergrads had a class rank higher than Y then X and Y together define the type of student who has a reasonable chance of being admitted to Harvard.
I suspect Asians' share graduating high school seniors fitting the "Harvard profile" is higher than Asians' share of the general population. It's not their share of the general population that matters when trying to estimate whether they're "over" or "under" represented at Harvard, but their share of the set of the population with a reasonable chance at being admitted to Harvard.
Did those who passed the Imperial Examination necessarily have greater access to concubines than the set that didn't pass? If they in fact did reproduce at a higher rate, were there enough of them (exam passers) to significantly affect the genetic stock of all Chinese as a whole?
Nope: It only becomes pejorative when the actions of the people it is used to describe are in the majority condemnable - a point that repeatedly flies way over your narrowly focused head.
The term might have appeared occasionally in the past, but around mid-2013 it took on anew and wholly pejorative connotation. Especially when used in its acronym form. Here is the google trend for "Social Justice Warrior". The phrase is almost non-existent until April 2013. Here is the google trend for "SJW". It follows the same pattern, but isn't exactly zero prior to April 2013 due to the existence of a company named "SJW Corp." Now gamergate didn't show up until September 2014, so I can't entirely blame the uptick in "SJW" usage on gamergate. However, you'll notice the big spike in searches for "Social Justice Warrior" starts in August 2014, which is only one month before the big spike in searches for "gamergate".
It's when it's been used since to describe zealots like you who equate any resistance to your methods with being the worst kind of racist/sexist/...ist that it becomes pejorative.
For the record, I don't "equate any resistance to my methods with being the worst kind of racist/sexist". You don't know anything about me other than that I find the set of folks who frequently use the term "SJW" to be somewhat detestable. One needn't be a "SJW" himself for that to be the case.
The term was pejorative from the outset, created by folks who disagree strongly with the SJW point of view. The fact the none of the three words is individually pejorative when taken out of context isn't relevant. Consider "bleeding heart liberal". "Bleeding" isn't per se pejorative. Neither is "heart". Neither is "liberal". But the phrase "bleeding heart liberal" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative way.
Your dragging out absurdly un-nerd-like labels to describe nerds shows you up to be a probable faker as well.
The labels are un-nerdlike because the folks in this camp are acting like racist, sexist little shits. Which, presumably, is un-nerdlike.
I understand why people are tired of SJW behavior. Most of the people who are tired of that behavior don't actually use the term "SJW". They haven't even heard of it. The majority of the camp that does use that term actually over-uses it to apply to anyone who points out sexism or racism in any capacity, even when the situation is undeniably egregious.
Side point: the fact that you have such a close sense of group identity with "geekdom" is beyond sad. I don't, and I probably have as much geek "cred" as anyone.
Also important to remember that just as there are big differences from country to country there are big differences between U.S. states. If you compared only the scores of U.S. students in Massachussetts to the rest of the world then the U.S. would fare pretty well. When you include Mississippi, not so much. For historical reasons there are also large differences between the performance of majority and minority groups in the U.S. I realize other countries also have disadvantaged minority populations, but I suspect the U.S. would do better in a global comparison pitting majority vs. majority.
You sound like a truly delightful human being. To be clear, the acronyms I proposed weren't intended to apply broadly to all "gamers" or "nerds". Rather, to the subset who find themselves frequently invoking the acronym "SJW".
The acronym "SJW" is a pejorative for a certain kind of person. A phrase can be pejorative without being obviously so when removed from the larger context of its usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the surrounding cities don't raise their minimum wage levels, businesses in those cities will have to start paying their hourly employees more because of increased hourly wages in nearby Los Angeles. Why would I work at McDonald's for $8/hr in a suburb when I could drive an extra 10 minutes and make $15/hr at a McDonald's in L.A.? Answer: I wouldn't. Ergo the McDonald's in the burbs will have to offer a wage that at least approaches the current L.A. wage or it will struggle to hire staff.
First off, RoK doesn't explicitly reject PUA. It rejects MRM, but in rejecting the MRM it seems to define the movement differently than how those in that movement would define it. So RoK is distancing itself from something, perhaps certain segments of the MRM, but not the MRM as a whole.
What about the reverse? Would most guys in the MRM be shocked and horrified if they read a random sampling of articles from RoK?
Not exactly. I still think the term is used exclusively pejoratively by active participants in the "man-o-sphere". However, I'm not willing to say 100% of them rise to the level of douchebag. The vast majority do.
Is RoK solely a PUA blog? Doesn't seem to be. The wikipedia page on the "Men's Rights Movement" lists RoK as a "site dedicated to men's rights issues". And no I didn't just edit it. So we've got:
1. RoK founded by a guy (RooshV) who is closely tied to the PUA community.
2. Wikipedia calling RoK a "site dedicated to men's rights issues".
3. RoK making no mention of PUA in its rather lengthy "About" section.
4. RoK explicitly disassociating itself from the MRM, but only by redefining the MRM in a way that's not entirely accurate.
To the extent it makes sense to draw a line between the MRM and RoK, though, I'll modify my claim: "There is significant overlap between those who share the stated goals of RoK, which have nothing to do with PUA, and the PUA community."
Doesn't seem to explain the full biblical account. The voices he heard, for one, but also the claim that the "scales fell off his eyes" immediately after he was prayed for by Annanias. Of course you could argue those bits are fictional. The fact remains, though, that Saul was already "religious" prior to his experience on the road to Damascus.
Not true. I do, however, think most people who use it are douchebags. Hence my suggestions for acronyms to describe them.
Consider that RoK is owned by RooshV and that it regularly has posts like: How to Talk to Girls on Tinder.
I'm thick. How is Clarey distancing himself from the Men's Rights' movement proof of there being no significant overlap between the Men's Rights' and Seduction communities? To be fair, I may have mis-used the terms "Men's Rights'" when referring to folks like Clarey and, by extension, blogs like Return of Kings, since they (and it) explicitly reject that label. So I'll amend my position to be, "There is significant overlap between {men who strongly identify with the point of view of blogs like Return of Kings} and the pick-up artist community." That is, I would expect the average PUA community member to be highly sympathetic to the views expressed on Return of Kings.
Not my experience during interactions with those two communities.
I'm not complaining about the fact that it's pejorative. I was responding in disagreement to another poster who claimed it is not pejorative. "Liberal" isn't per se pejorative because it is frequently used in a non-pejorative sense. Liberals call themselves "liberals", for instance. "SJW", on the other hand, is almost exclusively used by folks who mean to evoke a connotation of contempt and/or disapproval. Which is pretty much exactly the definition of "pejorative".
Which is probably why there's substantial overlap between the MRA and "pickup artist" communities.
I agree Saul/Paul wasn't "spooked into religion" by a meteorite. I just wanted to hear his reasons for thinking that's the case.
Re: the road to Damascus, it's worth noting that Saul/Paul was already highly "religious" prior to that experience.
There is no single metric, true. But there are guidelines. We can look at Harvard's student body and objectively derive a profile based on numerically quantifiable traits (SAT scores + class rank). For instance, if 95% of Harvard undergrads scored above X on the SAT and 95% of Harvard undergrads had a class rank higher than Y then X and Y together define the type of student who has a reasonable chance of being admitted to Harvard.
I suspect Asians' share graduating high school seniors fitting the "Harvard profile" is higher than Asians' share of the general population. It's not their share of the general population that matters when trying to estimate whether they're "over" or "under" represented at Harvard, but their share of the set of the population with a reasonable chance at being admitted to Harvard.
Did those who passed the Imperial Examination necessarily have greater access to concubines than the set that didn't pass? If they in fact did reproduce at a higher rate, were there enough of them (exam passers) to significantly affect the genetic stock of all Chinese as a whole?
The term might have appeared occasionally in the past, but around mid-2013 it took on anew and wholly pejorative connotation. Especially when used in its acronym form. Here is the google trend for "Social Justice Warrior". The phrase is almost non-existent until April 2013. Here is the google trend for "SJW". It follows the same pattern, but isn't exactly zero prior to April 2013 due to the existence of a company named "SJW Corp." Now gamergate didn't show up until September 2014, so I can't entirely blame the uptick in "SJW" usage on gamergate. However, you'll notice the big spike in searches for "Social Justice Warrior" starts in August 2014, which is only one month before the big spike in searches for "gamergate".
For the record, I don't "equate any resistance to my methods with being the worst kind of racist/sexist". You don't know anything about me other than that I find the set of folks who frequently use the term "SJW" to be somewhat detestable. One needn't be a "SJW" himself for that to be the case.
The term was pejorative from the outset, created by folks who disagree strongly with the SJW point of view. The fact the none of the three words is individually pejorative when taken out of context isn't relevant. Consider "bleeding heart liberal". "Bleeding" isn't per se pejorative. Neither is "heart". Neither is "liberal". But the phrase "bleeding heart liberal" is used almost exclusively in a pejorative way.
The labels are un-nerdlike because the folks in this camp are acting like racist, sexist little shits. Which, presumably, is un-nerdlike.
I understand why people are tired of SJW behavior. Most of the people who are tired of that behavior don't actually use the term "SJW". They haven't even heard of it. The majority of the camp that does use that term actually over-uses it to apply to anyone who points out sexism or racism in any capacity, even when the situation is undeniably egregious.
Side point: the fact that you have such a close sense of group identity with "geekdom" is beyond sad. I don't, and I probably have as much geek "cred" as anyone.
What percentage do they make up of the population that is (in theory) qualified for admission to Harvard? That's the relevant stat, right?
Did the men who tested well and got those jobs reproduce at a higher rate? If not then it shouldn't be relevant except from a cultural standpoint.
For fun, in the PISA 2012 results, the U.S. scored higher than the following wealthy, western countries:
...in math: Sweden.
...in reading: Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Italy, Sweden.
...in science: Iceland, Luxembourg, Norway, Italy, Sweden.
Also important to remember that just as there are big differences from country to country there are big differences between U.S. states. If you compared only the scores of U.S. students in Massachussetts to the rest of the world then the U.S. would fare pretty well. When you include Mississippi, not so much. For historical reasons there are also large differences between the performance of majority and minority groups in the U.S. I realize other countries also have disadvantaged minority populations, but I suspect the U.S. would do better in a global comparison pitting majority vs. majority.
Unless they have a "smoking gun" the case is unlikely to succeed.
How do you figure?
Ergo religion is the result of irrationality and not "ignorance of science" like the original poster suggested.
You sound like a truly delightful human being. To be clear, the acronyms I proposed weren't intended to apply broadly to all "gamers" or "nerds". Rather, to the subset who find themselves frequently invoking the acronym "SJW".
Pejorative: expressing contempt or disapproval.
The acronym "SJW" is a pejorative for a certain kind of person. A phrase can be pejorative without being obviously so when removed from the larger context of its usage.