Bad Editorial Mocking Space

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Bad Editorial Mocking Space

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

I recall an editorial specifically saying employers should hire programmers with autism because they're easier to exploit and unlikely to have personal lives.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 07:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 08:17

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Not hot take: men and women are different on average and it probably does somewhat explain gender disparity in tech.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 09:36

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

asdf32 posted:

Not hot take: men and women are different on average and it probably does somewhat explain gender disparity in tech.

That's just because brain damaged parents out there stick to raising kids with gender roles still for some reason

# ? Aug 12, 2017 09:54

Byolante: Mar 23, 2008; by Cyrano4747

Larry Parrish posted:

That's just because brain damaged parents out there stick to raising kids with gender roles still for some reason

Its ok though, because now doctors have got on the woke train and are doing hormone therapy on kids under the age of 6 who have the sort of rationalised sense of self you need to know if you are trans.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 10:48

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Byolante posted:

Its ok though, because now doctors have got on the woke train and are doing hormone therapy on kids under the age of 6 who have the sort of rationalised sense of self you need to know if you are trans.

I'll admit I don't understand trans people in the slightest but I really want to know how the doctors doing that aren't in prison lmfao

# ? Aug 12, 2017 11:07

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

asdf32 posted:

Not hot take: men and women are different on average and it probably does somewhat explain gender disparity in tech.

yeah, there are some fairly massive differences that directly impact the gender disparity

for example, male programmers aren't constantly sexually harassed and looked down upon as inferior

people like to focus on the low number of women entering tech as a career, but the more important statistic is the number of women leaving tech as a career because they're sick of putting up with an entire industry of vile MRA nerds

# ? Aug 12, 2017 13:45

got any sevens: Feb 9, 2013; by Cyrano4747

Larry Parrish posted:

I'll admit I don't understand trans people in the slightest but I really want to know how the doctors doing that aren't in prison lmfao

STATES RIGHTS

# ? Aug 12, 2017 16:00

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

In the early 1980s, computer science had a 50/50 gender parity

Oh whoops that contradicts the malebrains theory

# ? Aug 12, 2017 16:14

Endorph: Jul 22, 2009

programming was seen as 'women's work,' a secretarial task, and women made several of the earliest advances in the field. then men got interested in it and kicked women out of their jobs and suddenly it was a highly specialized field worth incredibly high salaries

# ? Aug 12, 2017 16:17

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

the whole Google thing is really drawing the stealth misogynists out of the woodwork

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/a-question-for-google-ceo-sundar-pichai/536535/ posted:

Given that the full text of the memo is public, that it is the subject of a national debate on an important subject, that many educated people disagree with one another about what claims it made, and that clarity can only help Google employees adhere to the company’s rules going forward, would you be willing to highlight the memo using green to indicate the “much” that you identified as “fair to debate” and red to flag the “portions” that you deemed Code-of-Conduct violations?
...
As a general matter, for example, I wonder if you believe the truth of a proposition is relevant to whether it violates the Code of Conduct. Can something be both the scientific consensus on a subject and unmentionable?

Jacobs adds, “I seriously doubt that Google will get much more specific. Their goal will be to create a climate of maximal fear-of-offending, and that is best done by never allowing employees to know where the uncrossable lines are. That is, after all, corporate SOP.” I’d guess legal incentives are a more powerful motivator of strategic vagueness. Are we being too cynical?

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:23

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

Byolante posted:

Its ok though, because now doctors have got on the woke train and are doing hormone therapy on kids under the age of 6 who have the sort of rationalised sense of self you need to know if you are trans.

in addition to the fact that children aren't mentally ready at age 6 to say that they identify as a different gender, that also sounds grossly unhealthy

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:28

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

Larry Parrish posted:

I'll admit I don't understand trans people in the slightest but I really want to know how the doctors doing that aren't in prison lmfao

They aren't doing that, it's stupid poo poo invented by evangelicals and terfs. Nobody starts puberty blockers before puberty. Also trans kids are significantly more monitored.

Agnosticnixie has issued a correction as of 17:46 on Aug 12, 2017

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:41

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

get that OUT of my face posted:

in addition to the fact that children aren't mentally ready at age 6 to say that they identify as a different gender, that also sounds grossly unhealthy

The whole gender dysphoria issue is such a political minefield (and a lot of trans-supportive activists have a probably justified but possibly counterproductive crisis mode attitude given the suicide rate for trans people) that a lot of decisions tend to go to one horrible extreme or the other, it seems.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:42

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

Inescapable Duck posted:

The whole gender dysphoria issue is such a political minefield (and a lot of trans-supportive activists have a probably justified but possibly counterproductive crisis mode attitude given the suicide rate for trans people) that a lot of decisions tend to go to one horrible extreme or the other, it seems.

Maybe peddling fake nonsense like "they're giving boob jobs and vaginoplasties to 6 years olds omg" would help not make it a minefield.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:44

Saagonsa: Dec 29, 2012

Byolante posted:

Its ok though, because now doctors have got on the woke train and are doing hormone therapy on kids under the age of 6 who have the sort of rationalised sense of self you need to know if you are trans.

lol gently caress off

# ? Aug 12, 2017 17:58

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

whoops shouldn't have fallen for the obvious troll

# ? Aug 12, 2017 18:39

Tunicate: May 15, 2012

Inescapable Duck posted:

I recall an editorial specifically saying employers should hire programmers with autism because they're easier to exploit and unlikely to have personal lives.

Microsoft is deliberately making an effort to hire autists

# ? Aug 12, 2017 19:08

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Nebakenezzer posted:

In the early 1980s, computer science had a 50/50 gender parity

Oh whoops that contradicts the malebrains theory

At Harvey Mudd College they were able to return to that parity in just a few years.

# ? Aug 12, 2017 21:10

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Not an op-ed, I would have to go look, but for my local paper, one of the reporters is super active on its facebook and is constantly calling people that disagree with him and his poo poo views, SJWs and snowflakes. This paper is so bad, it was often a source joking on back in my colleges newspaper

# ? Aug 12, 2017 23:46

fabergay egg: Mar 1, 2012; it's not a rhetorical question, for politely saying 'you are an idiot, you don't know what you are talking about'

Maybe women don't work in tech because they're smart enough to realize that bosses expecting you to work at 11pm aren't expecting to pay you overtime for that work?

# ? Aug 13, 2017 03:59

Larry Parrish: Jul 9, 2012; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Best Giraffe posted:

Maybe women don't work in tech because they're smart enough to realize that bosses expecting you to work at 11pm aren't expecting to pay you overtime for that work?

# ? Aug 13, 2017 05:11

Zeris: Apr 15, 2003; Quality posting direct from my brain to your face holes.

https://twitter.com/kfile/status/896841605180776449

Edit I guess it already hit the NYTimes thread oh well

Zeris has issued a correction as of 17:23 on Aug 14, 2017

# ? Aug 14, 2017 17:04

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

https://twitter.com/wsj/status/897175220477468674

"return" (lol) of white nationalism happened because black people wanted police to stop murdering them

# ? Aug 14, 2017 20:45

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Badger of Basra posted:

https://twitter.com/wsj/status/897175220477468674

"return" (lol) of white nationalism happened because black people wanted police to stop murdering them

starts off good, then tells the story of how racism was the exclusive province of white supremacists until the heroic nonviolent MLK slayed the best of intolerance with messages of colorblindness and racial equality

then it gets real bad

quote:

That principle has since been abandoned, however, in favor of a new identity politics that again seeks to divide Americans by race, ethnicity, gender and even religion. “Diversity” is now the all-purpose justification for these divisions, and the irony is that America is more diverse and tolerant than ever.

The problem is that the identity obsessives want to boil down everything in American life to these categories. In practice this means allocating political power, contracts, jobs and now even salaries in the private economy based on the politics of skin color or gender rather than merit or performance. Down this road lies crude political tribalism, and James Damore’s recent Google dissent is best understood as a cri de coeur that we should aspire to something better. Yet he lost his job merely for raising the issue.

A politics fixated on indelible differences will inevitably lead to resentments that extremists can exploit in ugly ways on the right and left. The extremists were on the right in Charlottesville, but there have been examples on the left in Berkeley, Oakland and numerous college campuses. When Democratic politicians can’t even say “all lives matter” without being denounced as bigots, American politics has a problem.

Mr. Trump didn’t create this identity obsession even if as a candidate he did try to exploit it. He is more symptom than cause, though as President he now has a particular obligation to renounce it. So do other politicians. Yet the only mission of nearly every Democrat we observed on the weekend was to use the “white supremacist” cudgel against Mr. Trump—as if that is the end of the story.

# ? Aug 14, 2017 20:53

Lindsey O. Graham: Dec 31, 2016; "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Badger of Basra posted:

https://twitter.com/wsj/status/897175220477468674

"return" (lol) of white nationalism happened because black people wanted police to stop murdering them

-again

they had simila complaints in the 60's, and before that, the 30's

incidentally the kkk were also quite active durin these periods

:classiclol:

e:
also, that editorial is garbage, and readin it hurt ma eyeballs, so i did not finish

Lindsey O. Graham has issued a correction as of 21:09 on Aug 14, 2017

# ? Aug 14, 2017 20:59

Lindsey O. Graham: Dec 31, 2016; "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Main Paineframe posted:

starts off good, then tells the story of how racism was the exclusive province of white supremacists until the heroic nonviolent MLK slayed the best of intolerance with messages of colorblindness and racial equality

then it gets real bad

i agree with this assessment

# ? Aug 14, 2017 21:10

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Lindsey O. Graham posted:

e:also, that editorial is garbage, and readin it hurt ma eyeballs, so i did not finish

Alakazzam! [oh god is this cultural appropriation]

quote:

As ever in this age of Donald Trump, politicians and journalists are reducing the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday to a debate over Mr. Trump�s words and intentions. That�s a mistake no matter what you think of the President, because the larger poison driving events like those in Virginia is identity politics and it won�t go away when Mr. Trump inevitably does.

The particular pathology on display in Virginia was the white nationalist movement led today by the likes of Richard Spencer, David Duke and Brad Griffin. They alone are to blame for the violence that occurred when one of their own drove a car into peaceful protesters, killing a young woman and injuring 19 others.

The Spencer crowd courts publicity and protests, and they chose the progressive university town of Charlottesville with malice aforethought. They used the unsubtle Ku Klux Klan symbolism of torches in a Friday night march, and they seek to appear as political martyrs as a way to recruit more alienated young white men.

Political conservatives even more than liberals need to renounce these racist impulses, and the good news is that this is happening. The driver has been charged with murder under Virginia law, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened a federal civil-rights investigation and issued a statement condemning the violence: �When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.� Many prominent conservatives also denounced the white-nationalist movement.

LAME TRUMP DEFENSE

Mr. Trump was widely criticized for his initial statement Saturday afternoon that condemned the hatred �on many sides� but failed to single out the white nationalists. Notably, David Duke and his allies read Mr. Trump�s statement as attacking them and criticized the President for doing so.

The White House nonetheless issued a statement Sunday saying Mr. Trump �includes white supremacists, KKK, Neo-Nazi and all extremist groups� in his condemnation. As so often with Mr. Trump, his original statement missed an opportunity to speak like a unifying political leader.[

LAME TRUMP DEFENSE/end

Yet the focus on Mr. Trump is also a cop-out because it lets everyone duck the deeper and growing problem of identity politics on the right and left. The politics of white supremacy was a poison on the right for many decades, but the civil-rights movement rose to overcome it, and it finally did so in the mid-1960s with Martin Luther King Jr. �s language of equal opportunity and color-blind justice.

That principle has since been abandoned, Note this is wrong as the first thing that happened when the civil rights act was signed was that the GOP's 'southern strategy' IE appealing to racists in the American south that were formerly Dixiecrats became the cornerstone of their modern electoral strategy however, in favor of a new identity politics that again seeks to divide Americans by race, ethnicity, gender and even religion. �Diversity� is now the all-purpose justification for these divisions, and the irony is that America is more diverse and tolerant than ever.

the previous two sentences are mindbreaking
tolerance of others seeks to divide people by their differences? WTF

The problem is that the identity obsessives want to boil down everything in American life to these categories. In practice this means allocating political power, contracts, jobs and now even salaries in the private economy based on the politics of skin color or gender rather than merit or performance. Down this road lies crude political tribalism, and James Damore�s recent Google dissent is best understood as a cri de coeur that we should aspire to something better. Yet he lost his job merely for raising the issue.

Once again mindbreaking
I think the only way you could think these two sentences is if everything was objectively, completely fair already, therefore any deviation from this is by definition something less fair
also reverse racism
also defend the sanctity of

A politics fixated on indelible differences will inevitably lead to resentments that extremists can exploit in ugly ways on the right and left. The extremists were on the right in Charlottesville, but there have been examples on the left in Berkeley, Oakland and numerous college campuses. When Democratic politicians can�t even say �all lives matter� without being denounced as bigots, American politics has a problem.

help me people
by trying to fix problems and making our society fairer, this is politics which can be used by people for their own reasons, therefore don't fix problems

Mr. Trump didn�t create this identity obsession even if as a candidate he did try to exploit it. He is more symptom than cause, though as President he now has a particular obligation to renounce it. So do other politicians. Yet the only mission of nearly every Democrat we observed on the weekend was to use the �white supremacist� cudgel against Mr. Trump�as if that is the end of the story.

THE OTHER SIDE PLAYED POLITICS with an issue and our side had to eat a poo poo sandwitch, TF it`s totally unfair

It isn�t, and it won�t be unless we confront this underlying politics of division. Not long ago we were rereading Justice Clarence Thomas�s prophetic opinion in Holder v. Hall, a 1994 Supreme Court ruling on dividing voting districts by race.

�As a practical political matter,� he wrote, �our drive to segregate political districts by race can only serve to deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.� Writ large, Justice Thomas was warning that identity politics can destroy democratic trust and consent

And Thomas is our BLACK REPUBLICAN.QED GOP MOAR BETTER

# ? Aug 14, 2017 23:44

get that OUT of my face: Feb 10, 2007

thanks for saving me and most people reading this thread a click

# ? Aug 15, 2017 00:01

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

asdf32 posted:

Not hot take: men and women are different on average and it probably does somewhat explain gender disparity in tech.

The problem is that there's no way for us to actual confirm such a thing scientifically, and it makes more sense to just assume differences are due to socialization just as an Occam's Razor sort of thing. Like, we know that behavior can and is heavily influenced by society, but the extent to which genetic differences (whether between sexes or races or whatever) influence complex behavior is completely unknown (though there's very good reason to assume it's completely negligible between races, and likely similar between genders).

Put another way, there isn't any reason to ever assume "maybe it's biological" when it comes to complex behavioral stuff like this. Socialization should be the null hypothesis, and biological causes should only be discussed if they're proved to exist (which is something we generally aren't capable of doing scientifically at the present*). And even if some population-wide differences did exist, they would be far too small to justify the huge discrepancy we see in fields like tech.

*I'm ignoring stuff like actual mental retardation or autism or whatever, since that's generally not what people have in mind when they discuss differences between sexes or races. With the exception of stuff like that (where some specific variant causes some catastrophic change), we don't really have the tools to determine causal links between complex behavior and genetic differences. Differences in overall intelligence (and I'm ignoring the fact that we don't even have a good way of defining intelligence) are dependent upon such a massive number of interconnected variables (with no individual variables having a very disproportionate influence) that it's basically impossible at present to actually understand the causal relationships involved. And the fact that such a massive number of variables are involved also greatly decreases the chances of observing differences between gender/racial populations (since genetic differences between populations aren't great).

# ? Aug 15, 2017 00:19

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

polticio have done it again

https://twitter.com/politico/status/897527077980835840

gonna quote the whole thing because I don't want those fuckers to see a cent of ad revenue from this

quote:

The neo-Nazis and their ilk churned their wretched wake through Charlottesville over the weekend, leaving one dead and nearly two dozen injured. Preaching white supremacism, Jew-hatred, the need for an “ethnically defined” state and opposition to feminism and sexual “deviancy,” the movement’s leader, Richard Spencer, has skunked the national discourse with his rancid scent.

He’s not finished with us—or with Charlottesville. On Saturday, after being pepper-sprayed, Spencer took to Periscope to promise that he and his forces will return to the city. As a man of his vile word, we can expect him to make good on the pledge, which makes the riot only a prelude to his next media event.

The good news about the Nazis—oh, hell, there is no good news about the Nazis. But if you can choke down your disgust and open your eyes, something flattering about America begins to spiral out the weekend’s chaos. With our deeds and our actions, Americans have consistently held that in a just society nobody has the power to determine what constitutes allowable thought. Let a million flowers bloom—including fields of stinkweed—has been our reliable credo.

By extending and protecting First Amendment rights to speakers who express contemptible thoughts, America distinguishes itself. Many nations suppress ugly views by law. Germany bans Nazi symbols altogether and wearing a Nazi symbol can earn you three years in prison. Germany also prohibits “hate speech” and insults against religions, and tech firms must delete such offending content. In France, you can’t “apologize” for terrorism, deny the Holocaust happened or disparage somebody for their ethnicity or religion without courting prosecution by the state.

America’s decades-long tolerance of Nazis and their retrograde political views goes back to at least the late 1930s when hard-core Nazis could draw thousands for parades and once filled Madison Square Garden for a rally. Far from banning Nazi thought, the law protected it: A police force of 1,500 patrolled the streets outside the Garden in 1939 to prevent the Nazis and counter-demonstrators from clashing. White supremacist undercurrents resurfaced in the 1950s after George Lincoln Rockwell founded a high-profile but tiny American Nazi party that he ran out of an Arlington, Virginia, duplex. The Nazis’ ideological blood brothers, the Ku Klux Klan, enjoyed the support of millions in the 1920s and continued their racist, white supremacist ways into the contemporary era as David Duke abandoned the traditional sheets and hoods in an attempt to mainstream the group.

It may be no consolation to African-Americans, Jews, Muslims, women, gays and others on the receiving end of white supremacist and Nazi abuse, but allowing these racist scumbags to express themselves, full-throated, strikes a blow for freedom. Without a doubt, this anvil strike extracts a price. Words can wound. Words can menace. They have repercussions. But it’s almost always worse to prohibit expression than to adopt the default setting of allowing it. John Stuart Mill summed up the danger of stifling loathsome self-expression in On Liberty in 1859, writing that “the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of opinion” robs the human race more than it does the silenced speaker.

“If the opinion is right, [we] are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, [we] lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error,” Mill wrote. In other words, we must do everything in our power to expose our ideas to scrutiny and potential falsification. To do otherwise is to run a rigged game, with us as the ultimate losers.

That Spencer and his collaborators would be the first to restrict First Amendment rights should they take power is no excuse to deny them their rights of speech and lawful assembly. As Ken White points out on Twitter, we don’t deny “criminals due process or trials because they don’t give them to their victims.” Nor do we deny fascists free speech because they oppose free speech for others. Free speech, to crib from Mill again, protects us from those who think themselves infallible, and the minute we curb speech, we start building the sort of oppressive world that people like Spencer would like to inhabit.

The suppression of free expression, as we’ve seen in places like Germany and France, does little to extinguish detestable thought. It merely drives it underground, where it survives and sometimes thrives because it escapes inspection and criticism by its most articulate critics. This is not a Valentine to the disinfectant powers of sunshine. Free speech can’t right every wrong. It can’t win every argument. But it can take credit for reversing or ending many of the shameful practices and episodes in our history—slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, race riots, discrimination, quotas, housing covenants, disenfranchisement of woman voters, etc. It’s folly to think America would have ever become the better place that it is had free speech in all its forms had not been given sway.

(I draw no moral equivalence between the white supremacists who swarmed Charlottesville and the antifa who battle them in the streets. But in the instances where they attacked Spencer’s people without provocation, they did real harm to everybody’s freedom of speech and assembly, and deserve our reprimand—and maybe even a future column.)

White supremacists have been with us since the beginning of the republic. We’ll probably never be rid of them. Our best hope for containing them is to deny them the victim- and martyr-status they covet. And the best way to do that is to smother them in First Amendment protections and hope that they suffocate on them.

Main Paineframe has issued a correction as of 01:47 on Aug 16, 2017

# ? Aug 15, 2017 21:37

Lindsey O. Graham: Dec 31, 2016; "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Nebakenezzer posted:

Alakazzam! [oh god is this cultural appropriation]

wow!
thank you for this

the concern trolling editor gave himself away, how quaint

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Aug 16, 2017 01:23

Lindsey O. Graham: Dec 31, 2016; "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Main Paineframe posted:

polticio have done it again

https://twitter.com/politico/status/897527077980835840

gonna quote the whole thing because I don't want those fuckers to see a cent of ad revenue from this

this is the worst possible take, especially in the wake of a woman who was actually intentionally killed by these people

this is brutally obtuse, and apathetic

# ? Aug 16, 2017 01:31

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Ytlaya posted:

The problem is that there's no way for us to actual confirm such a thing scientifically, and it makes more sense to just assume differences are due to socialization just as an Occam's Razor sort of thing. Like, we know that behavior can and is heavily influenced by society, but the extent to which genetic differences (whether between sexes or races or whatever) influence complex behavior is completely unknown (though there's very good reason to assume it's completely negligible between races, and likely similar between genders).

Put another way, there isn't any reason to ever assume "maybe it's biological" when it comes to complex behavioral stuff like this. Socialization should be the null hypothesis, and biological causes should only be discussed if they're proved to exist (which is something we generally aren't capable of doing scientifically at the present*). And even if some population-wide differences did exist, they would be far too small to justify the huge discrepancy we see in fields like tech.

*I'm ignoring stuff like actual mental retardation or autism or whatever, since that's generally not what people have in mind when they discuss differences between sexes or races. With the exception of stuff like that (where some specific variant causes some catastrophic change), we don't really have the tools to determine causal links between complex behavior and genetic differences. Differences in overall intelligence (and I'm ignoring the fact that we don't even have a good way of defining intelligence) are dependent upon such a massive number of interconnected variables (with no individual variables having a very disproportionate influence) that it's basically impossible at present to actually understand the causal relationships involved. And the fact that such a massive number of variables are involved also greatly decreases the chances of observing differences between gender/racial populations (since genetic differences between populations aren't great).

Except you have it backwards - Occam's Razor says there are differences because that's what having vastly different biological roles and sexual dimorphism and the example of other sexually reproducing species tell us. To put it in perspective the difference between sexes is far wider than the differences between races.

And thinking otherwise is incompatible with modern/mainstream notions of gender and sexual orientation.

asdf32 has issued a correction as of 01:51 on Aug 16, 2017

# ? Aug 16, 2017 01:49

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

"If we give them full power over every branch of government we will control them easier" - What self proclaimed geniuses said before every loving fascist takeover

# ? Aug 16, 2017 02:01

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

asdf32 posted:

Except you have it backwards - Occam's Razor says there are differences because that's what having vastly different biological roles and sexual dimorphism and the example of other sexually reproducing species tell us. To put it in perspective the difference between sexes is far wider than the differences between races.

occam's razor is the rule that all other things being equal, we should take the simplest explanation

aside from saying "men and women have different roles in reproduction" I'm not sure what occam's razor gets you

that must be what you mean when you say "vastly different biological roles" because its not like the male tiger is a predatory cat, and female tigers are all green and subsist via photosynthesis, they are both predatory cats

# ? Aug 16, 2017 03:19

Lindsey O. Graham: Dec 31, 2016; "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

- The Chief

Agnosticnixie posted:

"If we give them full power over every branch of government we will control them easier" - What self proclaimed geniuses said before every loving fascist takeover

this post is officially too much reality

Nebakenezzer posted:

occam's razor is the rule that all other things being equal, we should take the simplest explanation

aside from saying "men and women have different roles in reproduction" I'm not sure what occam's razor gets you

that must be what you mean when you say "vastly different biological roles" because its not like the male tiger is a predatory cat, and female tigers are all green and subsist via photosynthesis, they are both predatory cats

this is a cool, and good, and correct take
*unironically*
:golfclap:

# ? Aug 16, 2017 08:45

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Nebakenezzer posted:

occam's razor is the rule that all other things being equal, we should take the simplest explanation

aside from saying "men and women have different roles in reproduction" I'm not sure what occam's razor gets you

that must be what you mean when you say "vastly different biological roles" because its not like the male tiger is a predatory cat, and female tigers are all green and subsist via photosynthesis, they are both predatory cats

Child bearing versus sperm donor are significantly different roles.

The simple position is that we're not unique in the animal kingdom and discernible behavioral differences are of course the norm. That humans show sexual dimorphism is another clue.

And again, modern understanding of gender and transgendered people recognizes gender identity is innate, not learned or environmental.

# ? Aug 16, 2017 12:43

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

asdf32 posted:

Child bearing versus sperm donor are significantly different roles.

The simple position is that we're not unique in the animal kingdom and discernible behavioral differences are of course the norm. That humans show sexual dimorphism is another clue.

And again, modern understanding of gender and transgendered people recognizes gender identity is innate, not learned or environmental.

Assuming "well, their reproductive organs are different, so clearly they must have completely different levels of intelligence and aptitudes" is quite a bit away from anywhere Occam's Razor could take you. Yes, there are obvious and proven physical differences - but there's nothing about any of those physical differences that would make one gender inherently better at jobs that society has arbitrarily decided are high-status and high-pay. Not that it loving matters, since this isn't D&D and we don't have to pretend logical fallacies mean anything besides "whatever I say is right and whatever you say is wrong".

The most obvious proof against the "physical differences" theory is that programming was originally a female-dominated field which was considered to be "women's work" (and, naturally, poorly paid). Then, as men figured out that programming was actually important, the status of the job rose, so did its pay, and the gender balance shifted significantly - even though the work hadn't really changed. When society's perception of the work changed, the gender ratio changed right along with the pay and perception.

# ? Aug 16, 2017 14:39

pushpins: Sep 11, 2006; Title text (optional; no images are allowed, only text)

Can we do throwback ones? This is from 2009

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drinking-kool-aid-failing-lead-hillary-president-placating-world-article-1.400251

quote:

Drinking the Kool-Aid: Failing to lead, Hillary follows the President in placating the world

"For her and Obama, everything is still about George Bush. Anything he touched is the Dark Ages and they have self-aggrandizingly anointed themselves the Enlightened Ones.

In Nigeria, Clinton went so far as to cite her role in the Obama administration as proof that America is better now. Apparently she thinks the Team of Rivals formula is all that separates the U.S. from Nigeria.

Sadly, it fits neatly with her boss' "blame America" approach to foreign policy. Once he leaves our borders, Obama exhibits a bad habit of bad-mouthing his own country in ways that suggest we are no better than the rest of the world and are often the root of problems.

In France, he said "America has shown arrogance." In Turkey, he said of race relations that "we are still working though some of our darker periods." And he told Central and Latin American leaders that he wanted to get more people there to "see us as a force for good or at least not a force for ill."

Those remarks inadvertently reveal our President's negative view of the nation he leads, a view he was careful to conceal during the campaign.

The policy implications of a moral equivalency view of the world are troubling. In Cairo, for example, Obama movingly decried the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust, then glibly shifted to the need for a Palestinian state as though the two are of equal weight and linked.

In the same speech, he waffled on whether the U.S. would accept Iran getting nukes, saying, "No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons."

It's a fellowship foreign policy when American leadership is desperately needed. That leadership must start with a clear-headed view of the simple fact that America is the one indispensable nation on Earth. Economically, militarily and yes, morally, America stands alone as the beacon of human liberty.

Perhaps Obama and Clinton could get off their knees and say so just once. "

# ? Aug 16, 2017 15:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 2, 2024 08:17

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

pushpins posted:

Can we do throwback ones? This is from 2009

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drinking-kool-aid-failing-lead-hillary-president-placating-world-article-1.400251

Throwbacks are totally valid, IMO

# ? Aug 16, 2017 15:54

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Bad Editorial Mocking Space

«‹›4 »