So it's alright to call my female boss a cocksucker? After all, not treating a female the same way you would treat a male is sexist, right? Or is it really just not okay to call your boss a cocksucker, regardless of gender? No matter how much we all really want to.
There people deserve the experience they were sold when they backed the Veronica Mars movie. They're entitled to it, as it is what Warner Bros. agreed to when they took their money. Instead of getting what they paid for, Warner Bros. is refunding their money when they complain. This company took investment funds from investors (that's what you do on Kickstarter) and, rather than hold up their end of the bargain, are retroactively saying "we actually didn't need your money, none of it was used to fund the production of this picture, so we're returning it to you, in whole". Except, that's now actually what they're saying, or they would be retuning everyone's money, without prompting. That's just what they're hoping we'll all hear. What they're really saying is "we don't care about our investors or our customers; doubly so when they are one in the same".
None of this is news, however. If they cared about their customers, we'd have first-party (e.g. studio-owned) unencumbered (e.g. DRM-free) download services and first-party streaming services (DRM might be acceptable here, actually) by now, and the industry would be making a killing off of them, even at lower rates than the 3rd-party "pay per stream" services (think iTunes).
And you managed to completely gloss over my point about diluting the meaning of sexism. Bravo. This is why it's impossible to have intelligent public discussion on this topic, and many others. Discussion which would go a long way toward solving some tough societal problems.
I'm not representing any side of anything; I'm representing my own opinion. In case you missed it, that is as follows: If the facts, as presented, are accurate, there was no sexism involved. She was confronted by the wife of a founder of the company, not even an employee, regarding the wife's own insecurities; there is no sexism in that, only one person's insecurity and lack of trust in their life partner. She felt she was treated unfairly via some commit comments, which we are not privy to and, therefore, can not evaluate as fact, nor form opinions on; there is no sexism there, and if she is purporting that there is, then we need to see it. She was mistreated by a male coworker, who viewed himself as her jilted lover; at most, this is sexual harassment, not sexism; not that one is any more or less despicable than the other. The company's response to her complaint about how this employee had treated her was certainly a bit underwhelming; but, then, we don't know what details were provided in the complaint, in the first place. I doubt there was any sexist motivation to the mishandling of her complaint and prefer, in the light of the rest of the situation, to attribute it to incompetence (on behalf of the company, not that of Miss Horvath, with whom I have previously interacted) I have no doubt she was actually wronged, as she claims, and am only stating my opinion as to the likely nature of the actual offenses against her, of which only one might possibly fit any reasonable definition of sexism or gender discrimination.
How does pointing out that this may or may not be sexism at work minimize sexism? Calling something that is not sexism does nothing more than dilute the meaning of the word and the power of the concept, thereby trivializing and minimizing it. Calling into question whether an act is truly sexist actually does the opposite, as does making the effort to accurately define the concept.
When you paint everything the same color, that color begins to lose all meaning, as that color becomes normal, and normal is acceptable. Do you want sexism to become acceptable? If not, you'd best make sure you're not calling out normal and/or otherwise non-sexist behavior as sexist. That, my friend, is precisely why the distinction is not only helpful, but essential.
Point to the sexism, here, and back up your position. My ears and eyes are open.
I think you missed the point of my post. Clearly, I'm not misogynistic enough to even have a clear picture of what the roles should be; if your posts are at all accurate, there is more of a parallel with Lions (and likely many other large mammals), where the females are the hunter-gatherers by nature. If you actually read the entirety of my post, however, it should become clear that I was pointing out that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter; anyone should be allowed to fill any role they're physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of filling, and respected based on the merits of their performance, rather than their gender. I didn't put it quite that way, and the part of my post that was making that point didn't use as many words, so I can understand how you may have missed it, not having been slapped upside the head with tit and all.
And this is why these topics never see any reasonable, mature, and progressive discussion.
Then she was smart enough to have done so before making publicly coming out against her previous employer. Good on her, let's hope this job works out, then. Don't take my comment as being unsupportive of her or her actions, as I certainly support anyone's right to move on from a bad situation, and to make that situation known. I'm simply stating a fact; one which she was clearly aware of, as she had a new job lined up before all of the publicity.
As I was attempting to point out with my comments re: pull requests, there is a distinct difference between abuse and ribbing based on inside knowledge; to someone lacking that inside knowledge, the two, however, are indistinguishable. Your response seems to be in support of the "yeah, she's just weak" position you appear to think I was taking. You to make a good point about commit comments in the Linux kernel repos, though:)
I could just as easily have been transferred to another location; she didn't have to go up the chain and have me removed at the district level. In retrospect, it was a shit retail job, so I'm better off for it; and she did admit what happened several months later and was let go, as well. As far as I know, she still hasn't recovered from the 9 year gap the incident left in her employment history. That's not the kind of incident that results in keeping an employer on your resume.
If the claim of harassment is directly related to her work, then yes, that would be how one would verify that claim. If it is not, then no, it would be unnecessary and could be (rightly) viewed as further harassment.
This. Sort of. If things really are that bad at GitHub, then it needs to be talked about. However, whether or not any of this is true, who is going to hire her now? Anonymity is important, here; at the very worst, had she blown the whistle on this anonymously, someone could reveal her name and open the door for her to sue for enough money to live comfortably on without having to work another day in her life. But, because she's now gone and labeled herself as someone who will make trouble for her employer, she's going to have to find herself a man who's looking for a woman willing, ready, and able to fill her gender-stereotypical role. She will never find another decent job after this.
No false dichotomy there. Gender problems are people problems, but people problems are *not* gender problems. This was not a gender problem, but it was, and is, a people problem.
Or, you'd treat your wife or girlfriend with respect. Of course, the knife cuts both ways; I was removed from my position at a company because I turned my *female* manager down for a date, because I was already in a relationship. She was absolutely stunning and, were the situation different, I would have been all over her, but that doesn't change the fact that I was already taken.
Careful with that talk, you may be decried as a sexist for it. After all, it's not natural that men and women may have different biologically predetermined roles. It's not like one of us was built to reproduce and wired to care and nurture, while the other was built to work and wired to gather and provide. We don't see this anywhere else in the animal kingdom, either; certainly not in other mammals.
Wait. We do?
That said, there really and truly is nothing preventing us all from working together. Those willing to give it a go just need to be aware of, and willing to deal with, the reality of the situation, which is that a mixed workplace differs from a nightclub only in the lighting, volume level, and amount of booze and dancing. Hell, drug use is similar at both. Am I saying that's right? No. Fuck, I can't stand the club scene. Would I rather work just with men? I'm sure my wife would rather I did.
By themselves the points may not seem all that bad, but together they're more fishy, and when you put them in a context of a company with gender issues they're quite damning.
What if, and I'm just posing a scenario here, the entirety of the gender issues consists of those points, and those points only? Are those points, themselves, enough to provide a damning context of gender issues?
I'm not denying that there are companies out there that are just horrible to women; usually they're just as horrible to men, but we're bred to take it with a grin and keep on going. What I'm asking is... Have we all become oversensitive?
Were they calling out *her* character on pull requests, or was it more widespread? Was it done in seriousness, or in jest? The answer to the first question should lead to the answer to the second; if it was widespread, it was also likely in jest, and sometimes it's difficult to pick up on that if you haven't been around long enough to know all of the inside info, things that have happened in the past that people are poking fun at, and whatnot. If it was just her, just women, or just a handful of the team who had to deal with it, then there certainly was a problem and nobody can deny that.
The thing is, we don't know. None of us are there. Well, I'm sure a few of us actually are there, but they can't speak up because, no matter what the situation is, we, as a group will tear them apart; either they'll admit it's true and we'll hate them for it, or they'll deny it and we'll decry them as a liar, whether they are or not. Even if they didn't participate. Because, clearly, they didn't do enough to prevent it or put a stop to it. Like anyone here could possibly know that; perhaps they did and it was those in power who didn't act. Or, perhaps, there was actually no problem. We don't now, and will never, know.
If this was a "just her" issue, then it wasn't sexism; if it was an "everyone" issue, it probably wasn't even negative or malicious. Only if it was a "just women" and, at that, an "all women" issue; only then was it sexist. After all, it is possible that a woman, or a group of women, may be disliked and people may wish to drive her, or them, away, without sexism being the driving force. To put that another way, a sexist man will never respect a woman; so if it wasn't happening to all women within the organization, if any of them were respected, it wasn't sexism.
Your argument is that you will only pay for IP to pay the production crew:
No. My argument is that there is 0 justification for a 3000% markup and that 1000% is much more reasonable. Since when is a 1000% markup "at cost" or "not paying"? Work on your reading comprehension, quit trolling, or fuck off; I'm not sure which of these applies in your case, but I'm sure you can figure it out.
Your argument, snarf, completely leaves out the profit for the investors. If there is no potential for profit, there is no investment.
Wrong again. My argument suggests shifting the primary source of profit from theatrical releases and physical disc sales, which are what the industry claims is shrinking, to first-party (as in run by the studios themselves) download and streaming services, which will prove to be more profitable, simply by giving consumers what they want. Where do I say, anywhere, that the content should never turn a profit? Where do I say it should be free, or sold "at cost" after production costs have been recouped? I don't. I do, however, say that a 3000% markup is indefensible after those costs have been recouped.
What I won't do is believe investors should be capped in how much they make. Nor the actors who demand $20 million. If they can get it, it's not my problem.
And what I'm proposing is likely to net everyone involved even more money, while costing the average consumer even less, as the many pirates who do so primarily due to the brokenness of the system become paying customers. You did catch the part, in my original post, about first-party streaming, right? The part where I say they could charge $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD, and make more per stream than they do off of iTunes, all while providing better value for the consumer (the same product, cheaper, with more profit for the studio because there is no middle-man).
To repeat, I'm a pirate and 100% opposed to government dictated IP...
How do you propose they punish people who upload illegal copies? Kill their account? They'll just create a new one. Sue them? Not their content, no grounds to do so. Require their legit name? Good, you did suggest that. And they tried it. How would any of it be enforced? It's trivial for me to get a new IP address, a new free email with any number of providers, and create a new Google account.
They don't make DMCA requests take hours, the law does. And they don't share the names of the felons uploading content that does not belong to them because those felons do not exist; it's not a felony, or even a misdemeanor, but a civil infraction, which means that, while illegal, it is actually not a crime at all.
But that just fucks up your world view, so you'll go ahead and ignore it, now, won't you?
Yes, because YouTube searches for content to steal. Right.
Actually...
Wrong. If it's on YouTube, it's there because someone, somewhere, uploaded it to YouTube and, in doing so, certified that they had the right to do so and agreed to allow YouTube to attach ads to it. That person, the one who uploaded the content they had no right to upload the content, who had no right to agree to allow ads to be attached to it, is the one who is in the wrong; they are the one Kurt Sutter should be pissed at, not Google, who provides a service that allows people to upload their own content. YouTube works on trust, and that trust has been violated, but Google has kept up their end of things; if you see your content on YouTube and you did not authorize its presence there, Google will remove it, but you have to make them aware of it, first.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's alright to call my female boss a cocksucker? After all, not treating a female the same way you would treat a male is sexist, right? Or is it really just not okay to call your boss a cocksucker, regardless of gender? No matter how much we all really want to.
BINGO!
There people deserve the experience they were sold when they backed the Veronica Mars movie. They're entitled to it, as it is what Warner Bros. agreed to when they took their money. Instead of getting what they paid for, Warner Bros. is refunding their money when they complain. This company took investment funds from investors (that's what you do on Kickstarter) and, rather than hold up their end of the bargain, are retroactively saying "we actually didn't need your money, none of it was used to fund the production of this picture, so we're returning it to you, in whole". Except, that's now actually what they're saying, or they would be retuning everyone's money, without prompting. That's just what they're hoping we'll all hear. What they're really saying is "we don't care about our investors or our customers; doubly so when they are one in the same".
None of this is news, however. If they cared about their customers, we'd have first-party (e.g. studio-owned) unencumbered (e.g. DRM-free) download services and first-party streaming services (DRM might be acceptable here, actually) by now, and the industry would be making a killing off of them, even at lower rates than the 3rd-party "pay per stream" services (think iTunes).
And you're in the minority. Have fun with that.
And you managed to completely gloss over my point about diluting the meaning of sexism. Bravo. This is why it's impossible to have intelligent public discussion on this topic, and many others. Discussion which would go a long way toward solving some tough societal problems.
I'm not representing any side of anything; I'm representing my own opinion. In case you missed it, that is as follows: If the facts, as presented, are accurate, there was no sexism involved. She was confronted by the wife of a founder of the company, not even an employee, regarding the wife's own insecurities; there is no sexism in that, only one person's insecurity and lack of trust in their life partner. She felt she was treated unfairly via some commit comments, which we are not privy to and, therefore, can not evaluate as fact, nor form opinions on; there is no sexism there, and if she is purporting that there is, then we need to see it. She was mistreated by a male coworker, who viewed himself as her jilted lover; at most, this is sexual harassment, not sexism; not that one is any more or less despicable than the other. The company's response to her complaint about how this employee had treated her was certainly a bit underwhelming; but, then, we don't know what details were provided in the complaint, in the first place. I doubt there was any sexist motivation to the mishandling of her complaint and prefer, in the light of the rest of the situation, to attribute it to incompetence (on behalf of the company, not that of Miss Horvath, with whom I have previously interacted) I have no doubt she was actually wronged, as she claims, and am only stating my opinion as to the likely nature of the actual offenses against her, of which only one might possibly fit any reasonable definition of sexism or gender discrimination.
Not at the time, but it's unlikely I would have met my wife if things had played out differently.
How does pointing out that this may or may not be sexism at work minimize sexism? Calling something that is not sexism does nothing more than dilute the meaning of the word and the power of the concept, thereby trivializing and minimizing it. Calling into question whether an act is truly sexist actually does the opposite, as does making the effort to accurately define the concept.
When you paint everything the same color, that color begins to lose all meaning, as that color becomes normal, and normal is acceptable. Do you want sexism to become acceptable? If not, you'd best make sure you're not calling out normal and/or otherwise non-sexist behavior as sexist. That, my friend, is precisely why the distinction is not only helpful, but essential.
Point to the sexism, here, and back up your position. My ears and eyes are open.
I'm sure my wife would agree :)
I sincerely hope this post was pure satire.
I think you missed the point of my post. Clearly, I'm not misogynistic enough to even have a clear picture of what the roles should be; if your posts are at all accurate, there is more of a parallel with Lions (and likely many other large mammals), where the females are the hunter-gatherers by nature. If you actually read the entirety of my post, however, it should become clear that I was pointing out that it really doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter; anyone should be allowed to fill any role they're physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of filling, and respected based on the merits of their performance, rather than their gender. I didn't put it quite that way, and the part of my post that was making that point didn't use as many words, so I can understand how you may have missed it, not having been slapped upside the head with tit and all.
And this is why these topics never see any reasonable, mature, and progressive discussion.
Then she was smart enough to have done so before making publicly coming out against her previous employer. Good on her, let's hope this job works out, then. Don't take my comment as being unsupportive of her or her actions, as I certainly support anyone's right to move on from a bad situation, and to make that situation known. I'm simply stating a fact; one which she was clearly aware of, as she had a new job lined up before all of the publicity.
As I was attempting to point out with my comments re: pull requests, there is a distinct difference between abuse and ribbing based on inside knowledge; to someone lacking that inside knowledge, the two, however, are indistinguishable. Your response seems to be in support of the "yeah, she's just weak" position you appear to think I was taking. You to make a good point about commit comments in the Linux kernel repos, though :)
I could just as easily have been transferred to another location; she didn't have to go up the chain and have me removed at the district level. In retrospect, it was a shit retail job, so I'm better off for it; and she did admit what happened several months later and was let go, as well. As far as I know, she still hasn't recovered from the 9 year gap the incident left in her employment history. That's not the kind of incident that results in keeping an employer on your resume.
Your point? If you truly think that's what I was getting at, you must not have read my last paragraph.
If the claim of harassment is directly related to her work, then yes, that would be how one would verify that claim. If it is not, then no, it would be unnecessary and could be (rightly) viewed as further harassment.
I'm a huge proponent of the c-word. In a positive light.
This post disgusts me.
This. Sort of. If things really are that bad at GitHub, then it needs to be talked about. However, whether or not any of this is true, who is going to hire her now? Anonymity is important, here; at the very worst, had she blown the whistle on this anonymously, someone could reveal her name and open the door for her to sue for enough money to live comfortably on without having to work another day in her life. But, because she's now gone and labeled herself as someone who will make trouble for her employer, she's going to have to find herself a man who's looking for a woman willing, ready, and able to fill her gender-stereotypical role. She will never find another decent job after this.
No false dichotomy there. Gender problems are people problems, but people problems are *not* gender problems. This was not a gender problem, but it was, and is, a people problem.
Or, you'd treat your wife or girlfriend with respect. Of course, the knife cuts both ways; I was removed from my position at a company because I turned my *female* manager down for a date, because I was already in a relationship. She was absolutely stunning and, were the situation different, I would have been all over her, but that doesn't change the fact that I was already taken.
Careful with that talk, you may be decried as a sexist for it. After all, it's not natural that men and women may have different biologically predetermined roles. It's not like one of us was built to reproduce and wired to care and nurture, while the other was built to work and wired to gather and provide. We don't see this anywhere else in the animal kingdom, either; certainly not in other mammals.
Wait. We do?
That said, there really and truly is nothing preventing us all from working together. Those willing to give it a go just need to be aware of, and willing to deal with, the reality of the situation, which is that a mixed workplace differs from a nightclub only in the lighting, volume level, and amount of booze and dancing. Hell, drug use is similar at both. Am I saying that's right? No. Fuck, I can't stand the club scene. Would I rather work just with men? I'm sure my wife would rather I did.
By themselves the points may not seem all that bad, but together they're more fishy, and when you put them in a context of a company with gender issues they're quite damning.
What if, and I'm just posing a scenario here, the entirety of the gender issues consists of those points, and those points only? Are those points, themselves, enough to provide a damning context of gender issues?
I'm not denying that there are companies out there that are just horrible to women; usually they're just as horrible to men, but we're bred to take it with a grin and keep on going. What I'm asking is... Have we all become oversensitive?
Were they calling out *her* character on pull requests, or was it more widespread? Was it done in seriousness, or in jest? The answer to the first question should lead to the answer to the second; if it was widespread, it was also likely in jest, and sometimes it's difficult to pick up on that if you haven't been around long enough to know all of the inside info, things that have happened in the past that people are poking fun at, and whatnot. If it was just her, just women, or just a handful of the team who had to deal with it, then there certainly was a problem and nobody can deny that.
The thing is, we don't know. None of us are there. Well, I'm sure a few of us actually are there, but they can't speak up because, no matter what the situation is, we, as a group will tear them apart; either they'll admit it's true and we'll hate them for it, or they'll deny it and we'll decry them as a liar, whether they are or not. Even if they didn't participate. Because, clearly, they didn't do enough to prevent it or put a stop to it. Like anyone here could possibly know that; perhaps they did and it was those in power who didn't act. Or, perhaps, there was actually no problem. We don't now, and will never, know.
If this was a "just her" issue, then it wasn't sexism; if it was an "everyone" issue, it probably wasn't even negative or malicious. Only if it was a "just women" and, at that, an "all women" issue; only then was it sexist. After all, it is possible that a woman, or a group of women, may be disliked and people may wish to drive her, or them, away, without sexism being the driving force. To put that another way, a sexist man will never respect a woman; so if it wasn't happening to all women within the organization, if any of them were respected, it wasn't sexism.
Your argument is that you will only pay for IP to pay the production crew:
No. My argument is that there is 0 justification for a 3000% markup and that 1000% is much more reasonable. Since when is a 1000% markup "at cost" or "not paying"? Work on your reading comprehension, quit trolling, or fuck off; I'm not sure which of these applies in your case, but I'm sure you can figure it out.
Your argument, snarf, completely leaves out the profit for the investors. If there is no potential for profit, there is no investment.
Wrong again. My argument suggests shifting the primary source of profit from theatrical releases and physical disc sales, which are what the industry claims is shrinking, to first-party (as in run by the studios themselves) download and streaming services, which will prove to be more profitable, simply by giving consumers what they want. Where do I say, anywhere, that the content should never turn a profit? Where do I say it should be free, or sold "at cost" after production costs have been recouped? I don't. I do, however, say that a 3000% markup is indefensible after those costs have been recouped.
What I won't do is believe investors should be capped in how much they make. Nor the actors who demand $20 million. If they can get it, it's not my problem.
And what I'm proposing is likely to net everyone involved even more money, while costing the average consumer even less, as the many pirates who do so primarily due to the brokenness of the system become paying customers. You did catch the part, in my original post, about first-party streaming, right? The part where I say they could charge $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD, and make more per stream than they do off of iTunes, all while providing better value for the consumer (the same product, cheaper, with more profit for the studio because there is no middle-man).
To repeat, I'm a pirate and 100% opposed to government dictated IP...
...and a troll, or an idiot.
How do you propose they punish people who upload illegal copies? Kill their account? They'll just create a new one. Sue them? Not their content, no grounds to do so. Require their legit name? Good, you did suggest that. And they tried it. How would any of it be enforced? It's trivial for me to get a new IP address, a new free email with any number of providers, and create a new Google account.
They don't make DMCA requests take hours, the law does. And they don't share the names of the felons uploading content that does not belong to them because those felons do not exist; it's not a felony, or even a misdemeanor, but a civil infraction, which means that, while illegal, it is actually not a crime at all.
But that just fucks up your world view, so you'll go ahead and ignore it, now, won't you?
Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.
Actually, yes. If we couldn't speak freely, Google couldn't index and profit from it.
Yes, because YouTube searches for content to steal. Right.
Actually...
Wrong. If it's on YouTube, it's there because someone, somewhere, uploaded it to YouTube and, in doing so, certified that they had the right to do so and agreed to allow YouTube to attach ads to it. That person, the one who uploaded the content they had no right to upload the content, who had no right to agree to allow ads to be attached to it, is the one who is in the wrong; they are the one Kurt Sutter should be pissed at, not Google, who provides a service that allows people to upload their own content. YouTube works on trust, and that trust has been violated, but Google has kept up their end of things; if you see your content on YouTube and you did not authorize its presence there, Google will remove it, but you have to make them aware of it, first.