It's fairly clear that either the whole incident was specifically meant to cause a chilling effect or that the feds can't be trusted with permanent markers or grown-up scissors, much less the ability to obtain a gag order.

I think it's both. Certainly delivering the subpoena before obtaining the gag order was ridiculously amateurish. I mean, did they really expect _Reason_ to voluntarily comply? Or did they try to say "voluntarily" in the tone of voice used by Mafia dons and IRS agents, but their voice cracked?

You deny that the social consequences that specifically affect girls interested in technology are far more serious that those that affect boys.

That's correct.

The social consequences for boys, obviously, are minimal to non-existent!

See, this is where you lose your audience. Slashdot has a whole lot of men on it who know through personal experience that this is absolute bullshit.

The outrage over the flag wasn't that the flag itself exists. It was that a State of the United States of America had it flying over or in front of their capitol building, and worse still than that, was doing it as a "Fuck you" to the rest of the country for "imposing" civil rights on it.

THAT outrage should have been over 15 years ago, when the flag was moved from over the capitol building (where it was certainly inappropriate as a symbol of a defeated rebellion) to a war memorial honoring the dead of that state who fought on the side of the rebellion.

First, there is massive confirmation bias going on. The fact that the system selects people that look like you (and, frankly me) to be successful is not evidence that the system is fair for everyone.

I'm not Asian, so strike that point.

Second, the fact that you yourself (or someone you know) achieved success against overwhelming odds (whether it be poverty, lack of opportunity, gender, race, whatever) does not mean that there are no barriers to entry into STEM.

Show them. Poverty I'll grant; poverty makes everything harder. Gender and race are being assumed either without evidence, or with very shaky evidence (such as raw outcome numbers).

Third, how can everyone on a site that claims to be nerds completely ignore the scientific evidence of how internalized gender stereotypes affect the decision of women to go into STEM?

Because the "science" is shaky as hell. The gender disparity in CS and engineering is both enormous and resilient to attempts to dispel it, yet we're supposed to believe these "internalized gender stereotypes" are the main cause despite those same stereotypes somehow not affecting chemistry or advertising and only barely affecting mathematics?

Simple, in all my years in this group I did not see a single parasite there.

That's unusual, given how many C++ programmers are just lousy.

No, no, we haven't. Even if we had, what possible point is there in shouting down all discussion of gender in tech, of demanding Slashdot ban discussions of it?

Nobody's shouting anything down here. Some people are tired of the subject (perhaps largely because there's never any adult discussion, only agenda-pushing and resistance to it), hence not wanting these articles any more. Personally I'm not in that group.

And something tells me that the very fact you'd use the words "toxic masculinity" as something that apparently I (who has never used that term) are using the shutdown debate means you've heard some third hand version of what it means, but have actually no idea what it means.

I know the academic concept. And I know the surface definition. And I know there's a lot of equivocation between the two, what Scott Alexander calls the "motte-and-bailey" technique. Basically the term will be used derisively to attack men, and then when called on it, the feminist will retreat to the academic concept (even though it didn't make sense in context). The same goes for many of those other terms.

To tell the truth, a lot of the jargon used by academic feminists, from TM to privilege and even to "sexism" (which is used in a slightly different way to how most of us use it) is confusing, awkward, and frequently likely to be misinterpreted.

And there's a reason for that. The academic meanings are a cover. At least for internet feminists. The terms are used to mean exactly what they appear to mean, and when people cry foul, there's a retreat to the "academic" meanings to try to make it look like there's merely misunderstanding.

Do you realize what /r/KIA is doing to your brain? It's fucking you up man. It's not just making you look like a misogynist dick who gets literally everything wrong about the "other side", but it's actually moving you closer to being one.

I said "if people insist on arguing against your point of view you call them horrible misogynists and claim they personally are part of the problem", and you couldn't resist proving my point, could you?

No, Slashdot's approach is preventing any discussion from occurring at all. Almost every post that's modded up here is Off Topic. There is virtually no discussion of the issues raised by the program described. Viewing at -1? Not an option, because that's flooded with more crap.

Objecting to the program's sexism is off-topic? I don't think so. And since I browse at -1, I know that's an option. Nothing about Slashdot's system prevents discussion.

I can recognize the privilege I enjoy by being a good-looking, tall, straight, white, male or a healthy normal weight. I know (to some degree) the advantages those qualities have granted me both personally and professionally. Let's also not forget my upbringing: a middle-class family, an essentially crime-free neighborhood, an excellent school district, and parents that supported and encouraged our interests and paid careful attention to our education.I started live on easy mode.

This is a fine religious affirmation, but it's unlikely to convince anyone but the already converted.

You saw the summary on Slashdot's front page. You knew what the comments would be. Why did you go ahead anyway and click through?

Lulz.

Did you expect an adult discussion of gender issues on Slashdot? Did you expect an interesting back and forth discussion about whether this will help with various issues to do with women in tech, or if other issues need to be resolved that are of more import, or anything like that?

I wasn't born yesterday.

If so, did you miss the dozen or so other articles in the last year that dealt with similar articles, where the comments section was flooded by knuckleheads from /r/KotakuInAction? Where almost every comment that tried to discuss sexism was modded down out of view, and every comment disclaiming sexism exists or demanding Slashdot ban the subject from their front page modded up.

I'm on KiA (but I've been on slashdot longer than there's been a reddit). I find that bunch a hell of a lot more reasonable than your bunch. If you've lurked KiA, you've seen (though you likely won't acknowledge) that when someone posts something over the top they get told off for it, even if that means defending people most KiAers don't like.

I wish we could have an adult discussion of gender issues in tech, if not here than somewhere. But we cannot, because your side has already decided the answers and will shout down anyone who disputes them. You throw poo about "brogrammers" and "toxic masculinity". You claim atrocities and if other people (men or women) say they've never seen such, you make the unfalsifiable claim they happen constantly behind their back. You alternate between claiming men and women are the same (and therefore there should be 50% representation in tech) and that they are different and need to be treated differently. You insist that certain feminist views be accepted as axioms without or in spite of evidence. And if people insist on arguing against your point of view you call them horrible misogynists and claim they personally are part of the problem.

If ever there was a sign we need a different approach to Slashdot moderation, it would be this. I just don't know what that approach is. Slashdot's broteam is toxic, too effective at shouting down voices who want to discuss serious issues. How to deal with that in a way that doesn't have equally bad side effects is a discussion we need to have.

Slashdot's approach to moderation simply prevents your side from effectively censoring discussion through sock-puppeting as you would at a site where everyone gets a vote. I read at -1, and I'm not seeing a lot of stuff from your side downmodded to oblivion. You're certainly a minority voice here, but that's not the same thing. I suspect it's because Slashdot has an older demographic, so when you try the "Geeky white males had it easy and are a bunch of bros" line, it just rings false. We grew up when being interested in computers carried a stigma, and everyone understood that a "bro" was pretty much the opposite of a "nerd".

You're arguing with someone who says "STEM fields are being offshored, the working conditions suck, and the profession is filled with bullies and misogynists" right after saying it's great their daughter is going to med school. There ought to be a cymbal crash there.

Just how long does it take to stamp "DENIED" on a claim, and how does a drone make it faster?

The same people who willingly install devices into their OBDII port that lets insurance companies monitor their driving habits.

Wait, you mean I was supposed to plug that thing into my real OBDII port and not the one I hacked together to provide readouts for my ultra-realistic "Desert Bus" remake?

Move to the smaller tech hubs outside California and you can save 15% right up front, and then get a damage multiplier via cheaper living.

The frightening thing is that this is true even if your "smaller tech hub" is New York City.

.... to "simple" drones, that don't have altitude sensors or gps? Both of my daughter's drones have simple leveling sensors and that's pretty much it. Would unsophisticated drones be illegal by this bill?

It's a Feinstein bill. So of course yes.

As if we DON"T ALREADY DO THIS.

It's pretty much necessary, seeing as the other side can wage "war" 24/7/365 as well. I'd prefer a way to achieve a lasting peace, but I don't see how; there's no one on the other side with the authority to negotiate one (even if you could make peace with one group, as soon as you do so six others will splinter off to do more terrorism), and we can't kill them all without unacceptable collateral damage.

Not anti-SLAPP legislation (which are state laws), but the Communications Decency Act section 230, a rare case of an evil plan backfiring. The idea was to censor the Internet and throw a sop to dissenters by providing a shield from liability for user-provided content, but the courts ended up ruling everything but that sop unconstitutional.