hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 823 of 838 FirstFirst ... 323723773813820821822823824825826833 ... LastLast
Results 16,441 to 16,460 of 16752

Thread: Political Correctness Stories

  1. #16441
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Steph View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Yesterday I constructed a tower of paperclips and binders around a foot in height. It took me the best part of 30 minutes. When it was done I destroyed it and put the components away.

    Obviously I did this for fame and money and not simply for the love of procrastinating and setting myself arbitrary goals to achieve.
    I wish I got paid to build towers out of office supplies.
    Get an office job, it's like 90% arsing about.


  2. #16442
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    And that in turn generates millions of jobs
    IT TRICKLES DOWN
    Doesn't it?

    People sure seem to be simultaneously mad at my island's wealthy state and adamant that the wealthy don't employ anymore/contribute to society

    The mental gymnastics are interesting to see

  3. #16443
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    People are sometimes willing to do interesting things for themselves/no money.

    People are not willing to do boring/stressful things for free.
    And yet thousands of people pay to play Eve Online

    :^)

  4. #16444
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,167
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by XenosisMk4 View Post
    And that in turn generates millions of jobs
    IT TRICKLES DOWN
    Doesn't it?

    People sure seem to be simultaneously mad at my island's wealthy state and adamant that the wealthy don't employ anymore/contribute to society

    The mental gymnastics are interesting to see
    Small nations acting as tax havens can make a lot in their tax revenues compared to their total pop. It's a scale thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  5. #16445
    Donor Shiodome's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    I am a white male.
    Posts
    4,664
    persevering in trying to educate everyone else despite years of getting nowhere.
    refusing to be educated by anyone else despite years of input.

    the universal FHC experience. long may it last.

  6. #16446
    Mallet Head Donor 56k Lagman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 5, 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    4,223
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...odwork/?page=1

    Has anyone read the google guys manifesto yet, it sounds gammy

    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    I should be home.now but I keep stopping to post. I'm in need of a mega poo. so much so that I'm tempted to leave slurry across one of these gardens and deal with the wiping later. gonna toss a coin

    phoneposting

  7. #16447
    Larkonis Trassler's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    FEARLESS.
    Posts
    10,881
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    To take gender as an example. There are a very very tiny number of female CEOs and directors, and of those that are there some may have benefited from exactly the kind of policies I am talking about (not to get promotions they don't deserve but rather to counteract unfair negatives that prevent promotions).
    Such as?

    Take my profession as an example. Up to and including my level, which is now considered relatively senior, women outnumber men and there is definitely, measurably with various metrics, no material difference in ability by gender.

    Everything above me, women are a tiny minority, certainly less than 1/4.

    This has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with a job and social structure that makes it impossible to be in a senior role at a high end business and also be a primary or even equal caregiver to children without a live in full time nanny. Add to that a huge social pressure on women to raise kids and men to provide and you have a recipe for few women.
    Is the social pressure really that huge in <current year>?

    Conservatives explain this away as "just women's choices". But those choices are hardly unconstrained - thousands of years of social gender roles that are still heavily entrenched, many legal structures (UK women get ~10 times more parental leave than men), social pressure from peers, residual unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion etc all massively influence how women (and men) choose.
    Perhaps those thousands of years of gender roles aren't just social (are there any societies where those roles are reversed, if not then that might be an indicator that it's more than a social bias)... You do realise that having a child is a pretty traumatic experience? Maternity leave is the length it is because it can take some women months to physically recover. Add in to that breast feeding and the fact that most mothers actually want to spend those early months bonding with their babies. I didn't carry my son in my belly for 9 months so didn't take to him as quickly as my partner. I'd say I'm 'bonding' better with him now that he's more than an angry, smelly potato, whereas it came pretty much instantly to the Mrs but YMMV. Given that pregnancy changes the structure of a woman's brain I'm not surprised at this.
    I agree with your point about parental leave. I would like to see more of a Scandinavian model here (although the male/non birthgiver does have the ability to use up whatever maternity leave the birth giver doesn't use).
    Why do you seem to consider the 'choice' that the women becomes the primary care giver to be the wrong one? Men and women have different priorities when it comes to entrepreneurship and voting.

    I work in 2 person offices. Over the last 5 years I've shared 3 times with women who were more senior than me and got pregnant while working here. Maternity leave is generous and they all intended to (and did) come back to work afterwards. All 3 have now left. These were my friends, and I've seen them since they left. All three agree that inflexibility from senior partners/management/HR and a general culture which punishes parents from trying to balance priorities with work were the reason they left - all three went on to materially different jobs.
    That's not a free choice, that's an imposed social and working structure that systematically disadvantages primary caregivers, which for social and legal reasons are overwhelmingly women.
    As shitty as that is could changes have been made which wouldn't have been detrimental to the business? What sort of alterations were they asking for? You've said yourself that you put in 12 hour days occassionally, 60 hour weeks etc. Even with concessions such as working from home is that compatable with being a primary caregiver?

    Diversity champions / VPs etc are there to try to remove the irrational and unreasonable elements of these barriers / disadvantages. In 2017 we don't need a presenteeism culture - working from home is realistic and effective for the kind of work I do where it is basically impossible to shirk as you are personally responsible for projects, not a set number of work hours. Policies that encourage men to take fatherhood leave. Policies that help people juggle parenthood and work responsibilites. etc etc
    I don't disagree.

    Literally no-one has mentioned male dominated professions being toxic for women. And no-one is suggesting female only offices. So fuck off with that shit.
    You have in the past on numerous occassions with anecdotes about after hours drinks at strip clubs and suchlike. I wasn't suggesting 'female only offices' was merely trying to make a comparison to being the sole/one of few men in an office full of women.

    Similarly race - there is overwhelming evidence that interviewers rate highly people with similar ancillary charicteristics to themselves. Tall interviewers rate tall candidates higher, etc. Huge levels of unconscious bias. If you have very few senior people from minority groups, you arent going to recruit many, all other things being equal. You NEED policies to counteract these effects to level the playing field.

    Right wingers like you tend to assume affirmative action or diversity policies means "fuck how good they are, look at their skin colour - HIRED". They dont. They mean identifying bias, which can be done statistically and such info can be bought commercially from consultants, and then using that information to craft policies to counteract that bias. Done correctly this means you get the absolute best candidates, instead of "mediocre but white and male like us" candidates.
    You've said before that the phrase 'the best candidate should get the job' is inherently racist/biassed.

    I wasn't suggesting Off-White=Hired at all. The whole reasoning behind having a workforce that looks like a Benetton catalogue is that it supposedly encourages diversity of thought and action (although I fail to see how this is the case if there are no cognative differences between male and female brains as you so often postulate, I've also yet to see evidence that this is the case). Beneficiaries of AA and other programmes tend to be middle/upper middle class from minority backgrounds. So you'll still get an individual with a certain school tie who played trust-fund stick and knows when to use which knives and forks but he's a different colour so that's all right because it's a tick in the box.

    In a lot of cases recruiters will look for someone who they think will 'fit in' as well as makes the grade. And I don't disagree that a lot of this unconscious bias needs to be eliminated.

    My personal view is that men and women have differences beyond plumbing. Some of that is driven by culture and society (funny though that in more 'equal' societies there is a tendancy towards reverting to traditional gender roles) and some is most definitely driven by biology. There will always be some overlap, structural barriers that prevent or make it harder for primary caregivers should, where practicable, be broken down but you should not aim for, nor expect gender parity.

    A final thought. A company is recruiting a new graduate intake. They have a 100 slots and demand 50 male and 50 female recruits. The split of applicants is 200 from one gender and 50 from the other (assume a normal distribution curve of abilities so half of each group will be 'above average'). Is it right that they stick to their diversity quota?


  8. #16448
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,198
    In the very earliest days of computer programming, back in the days of punch cards... even before the transistor... there were a bunch of smart and educated women with skill in the field of programming. When they got children and other responsibilities they had to quit their jobs.

    What happened?

    One of those women decided to start working from home providing programming services, hired other housewives, created a company, earned shitloads of money.

    If there's such a gap in pay between equally productive males and females, blacks and asians; then why not start that company, earn billions of dollars?
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  9. #16449
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Posts
    328
    Quote Originally Posted by 56k Lagman View Post
    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...odwork/?page=1

    Has anyone read the google guys manifesto yet, it sounds gammy
    He's fired so the alt-right have canonized him already

  10. #16450
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    13,167
    Thus securing his legacy as a total moron
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  11. #16451
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    To take gender as an example. There are a very very tiny number of female CEOs and directors, and of those that are there some may have benefited from exactly the kind of policies I am talking about (not to get promotions they don't deserve but rather to counteract unfair negatives that prevent promotions).
    Such as?

    Take my profession as an example. Up to and including my level, which is now considered relatively senior, women outnumber men and there is definitely, measurably with various metrics, no material difference in ability by gender.

    Everything above me, women are a tiny minority, certainly less than 1/4.

    This has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with a job and social structure that makes it impossible to be in a senior role at a high end business and also be a primary or even equal caregiver to children without a live in full time nanny. Add to that a huge social pressure on women to raise kids and men to provide and you have a recipe for few women.
    Is the social pressure really that huge in <current year>?

    Conservatives explain this away as "just women's choices". But those choices are hardly unconstrained - thousands of years of social gender roles that are still heavily entrenched, many legal structures (UK women get ~10 times more parental leave than men), social pressure from peers, residual unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion etc all massively influence how women (and men) choose.
    Perhaps those thousands of years of gender roles aren't just social (are there any societies where those roles are reversed, if not then that might be an indicator that it's more than a social bias)... You do realise that having a child is a pretty traumatic experience? Maternity leave is the length it is because it can take some women months to physically recover. Add in to that breast feeding and the fact that most mothers actually want to spend those early months bonding with their babies. I didn't carry my son in my belly for 9 months so didn't take to him as quickly as my partner. I'd say I'm 'bonding' better with him now that he's more than an angry, smelly potato, whereas it came pretty much instantly to the Mrs but YMMV. Given that pregnancy changes the structure of a woman's brain I'm not surprised at this.
    I agree with your point about parental leave. I would like to see more of a Scandinavian model here (although the male/non birthgiver does have the ability to use up whatever maternity leave the birth giver doesn't use).
    Why do you seem to consider the 'choice' that the women becomes the primary care giver to be the wrong one? Men and women have different priorities when it comes to entrepreneurship and voting.

    I work in 2 person offices. Over the last 5 years I've shared 3 times with women who were more senior than me and got pregnant while working here. Maternity leave is generous and they all intended to (and did) come back to work afterwards. All 3 have now left. These were my friends, and I've seen them since they left. All three agree that inflexibility from senior partners/management/HR and a general culture which punishes parents from trying to balance priorities with work were the reason they left - all three went on to materially different jobs.
    That's not a free choice, that's an imposed social and working structure that systematically disadvantages primary caregivers, which for social and legal reasons are overwhelmingly women.
    As shitty as that is could changes have been made which wouldn't have been detrimental to the business? What sort of alterations were they asking for? You've said yourself that you put in 12 hour days occassionally, 60 hour weeks etc. Even with concessions such as working from home is that compatable with being a primary caregiver?

    Diversity champions / VPs etc are there to try to remove the irrational and unreasonable elements of these barriers / disadvantages. In 2017 we don't need a presenteeism culture - working from home is realistic and effective for the kind of work I do where it is basically impossible to shirk as you are personally responsible for projects, not a set number of work hours. Policies that encourage men to take fatherhood leave. Policies that help people juggle parenthood and work responsibilites. etc etc
    I don't disagree.

    Literally no-one has mentioned male dominated professions being toxic for women. And no-one is suggesting female only offices. So fuck off with that shit.
    You have in the past on numerous occassions with anecdotes about after hours drinks at strip clubs and suchlike. I wasn't suggesting 'female only offices' was merely trying to make a comparison to being the sole/one of few men in an office full of women.

    Similarly race - there is overwhelming evidence that interviewers rate highly people with similar ancillary charicteristics to themselves. Tall interviewers rate tall candidates higher, etc. Huge levels of unconscious bias. If you have very few senior people from minority groups, you arent going to recruit many, all other things being equal. You NEED policies to counteract these effects to level the playing field.

    Right wingers like you tend to assume affirmative action or diversity policies means "fuck how good they are, look at their skin colour - HIRED". They dont. They mean identifying bias, which can be done statistically and such info can be bought commercially from consultants, and then using that information to craft policies to counteract that bias. Done correctly this means you get the absolute best candidates, instead of "mediocre but white and male like us" candidates.
    You've said before that the phrase 'the best candidate should get the job' is inherently racist/biassed.

    I wasn't suggesting Off-White=Hired at all. The whole reasoning behind having a workforce that looks like a Benetton catalogue is that it supposedly encourages diversity of thought and action (although I fail to see how this is the case if there are no cognative differences between male and female brains as you so often postulate, I've also yet to see evidence that this is the case). Beneficiaries of AA and other programmes tend to be middle/upper middle class from minority backgrounds. So you'll still get an individual with a certain school tie who played trust-fund stick and knows when to use which knives and forks but he's a different colour so that's all right because it's a tick in the box.

    In a lot of cases recruiters will look for someone who they think will 'fit in' as well as makes the grade. And I don't disagree that a lot of this unconscious bias needs to be eliminated.

    My personal view is that men and women have differences beyond plumbing. Some of that is driven by culture and society (funny though that in more 'equal' societies there is a tendancy towards reverting to traditional gender roles) and some is most definitely driven by biology. There will always be some overlap, structural barriers that prevent or make it harder for primary caregivers should, where practicable, be broken down but you should not aim for, nor expect gender parity.

    Honestly I'm not going to argue with you on your responses to my post, what I wrote before put the argument for diversity measures as strongly as it can be made and if your answer is to make up a load of lies (and they are lies) about what I've said before and to say "that may be true but so what? No big deal" then honestly you are so deeply invested in being part of the problem that no amount of persuasion is going to change your mind.

    I do know for sure that Historians will look back at writing like yours and feel profoundly uncomfortable. It reads EXACTLY like racism and even slavery-apologism from past eras.

    I will respond to your new comments though:

    My personal view is that men and women have differences beyond plumbing. Some of that is driven by culture and society (funny though that in more 'equal' societies there is a tendancy towards reverting to traditional gender roles) and some is most definitely driven by biology.
    I've read a lot of the material on this (I've linked to it in the past too - here is a great summary: https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/deb...e05_index.html) . People like you seem to think this is just "reals before feels" - that its the scientific truth "SJWs" want to do away with. You cast the argument as between you, a bastion of science, and the feminists/SJWs/virtue signallers who are claiming men and women are exactly equal but for genitals, something effectively no-oone has ever claimed. But your view is not backed by science AT ALL, it's bullshit - the truth is that variation in gender averages accounts for less than 10% of total variation in almost every trait where men and women differ on average, and these differences are STILL not proven to be inherent biology - spend 30 years doing [X SKILL] tasks and you'll be better at [X TRAIT] than someone who, because of their gender, is told not to bother with [X SKILL] at all - there is strong evidence for this in the fact that in almost every measurable trait in which men and women differ in ability, the gap has been closing in the decades since we started measuring it. So if the science doesnt indicate, let alone prove, this claim, why do you believe it?

    Because of your personal biases and vested interest in the status quo of course. Or as you'd put it "my experience".

    Anyway it seems like you've admitted the existence of at least SOME of the systematic and irrational barriers to women that I pointed out exist and need dealing with. Given that, how can you object to all affirmative action? I understand you hate quotas - guess what, ME TOO. It's a fucking straw man.
    Last edited by Lallante; August 10 2017 at 08:38:03 AM.

  12. #16452
    Movember '12 Best Facial Hair Movember 2012Donor Lallante's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    16,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    In the very earliest days of computer programming, back in the days of punch cards... even before the transistor... there were a bunch of smart and educated women with skill in the field of programming. When they got children and other responsibilities they had to quit their jobs.

    What happened?

    One of those women decided to start working from home providing programming services, hired other housewives, created a company, earned shitloads of money.

    If there's such a gap in pay between equally productive males and females, blacks and asians; then why not start that company, earn billions of dollars?
    You heard it here first folks - women just need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

  13. #16453
    spitroast's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 8, 2015
    Location
    Angry Northern Bastard, UK
    Posts
    2,199
    Lall and his missus

  14. #16454
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Lallante View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    In the very earliest days of computer programming, back in the days of punch cards... even before the transistor... there were a bunch of smart and educated women with skill in the field of programming. When they got children and other responsibilities they had to quit their jobs.

    What happened?

    One of those women decided to start working from home providing programming services, hired other housewives, created a company, earned shitloads of money.

    If there's such a gap in pay between equally productive males and females, blacks and asians; then why not start that company, earn billions of dollars?
    You heard it here first folks - women just need to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.
    I'm not talking about women or minoirities starting those companies, any white jew'y looking male can start a company that exploits all that cheap and highly productive pool of labor.

    It has happened before during times of inequality, surely it can happen now too.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  15. #16455
    Paradox's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 24, 2011
    Location
    Deepest Darkest Devonshire
    Posts
    7,341


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph


    Poland treats me like shit and I hate them as a result of it

  16. #16456
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph
    Interesting, is this from The Economist? What do they postulate is the reason for the sudden drop off from the early 80s onward?


  17. #16457
    Duckslayer's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Anatidae Rising
    Posts
    11,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph
    Interesting, is this from The Economist? What do they postulate is the reason for the sudden drop off from the early 80s onward?
    All we know for certain is that a significant amount of female doctors and lawyers died on september 11 2001. really makes you think
    My Attorney has advised me to remove my new signature until further notice...

  18. #16458
    Hoggbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 16, 2013
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph
    Interesting, is this from The Economist? What do they postulate is the reason for the sudden drop off from the early 80s onward?
    Realising all your coworkers would be horrible nerds with an aversion to soap and deodorants probably and an obsession with being technically correct.
    go away

  19. #16459
    Smuggo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Behind you
    Posts
    28,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Duckslayer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph
    Interesting, is this from The Economist? What do they postulate is the reason for the sudden drop off from the early 80s onward?
    All we know for certain is that a significant amount of female doctors and lawyers died on september 11 2001. really makes you think
    These are women majoring in the subject m8 not how many are alive.


  20. #16460

    Join Date
    April 9, 2012
    Location
    Pit of depravity
    Posts
    6,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Smuggo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradox View Post


    I dunno what happened in the early 1980's but that sure is a graph
    Interesting, is this from The Economist? What do they postulate is the reason for the sudden drop off from the early 80s onward?
    As weird as it sounds, could it be anything to do with the rise of computer gaming? it's such a massively male dominated market i wouldn't be shocked to find that massively more men suddenly entered the field. Note this is just what % of the field are women, not actual numbers.

    Probably not, just a random thought.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •