No he didn't. He claimed that his statements were examples of existing institutional sexism.

The best part is:

Nice try:

http://www.snopes.com/racial/l...
http://www.babynamewizard.com/...

IQ tests may or may not be good but none of the things he said tell us that.

Your statement is actually reinforcing his point.

You are *not* a business user. If you were, you:

a) would not have been able to get Windows into a state that requires a reinstall. For instance, you would not personally install or update anything.
b) ...also would not have been able to reinstall Windows in the first place.

Your experience with a personal computer is irrelevant. This isn't mean as an insult -- you're just discussing a completely different thing.

You can't seriously believe this is the same thing.

Something more similar to the wearing provocative clothing would be somebody who was wearing clothing so glaringly unstylish that it provoked murder (which, I will note, happens, for certain values of "stylish"). Something more similar to advocating and cheering murder would be advocating and cheering rape (which, I will note, people do in prison contexts).

Yes, absolutely.

The older people where I grew up, grew up in a time when high school was not compulsory and was attached with real costs, and most did not partake in it. There is a sharp educational distinction between them and the younger generations which had University at least, and usually University.

(I'm in Canada, so it's not exactly the US system.)

Limit hold'em is real poker, and people actually do play it, at real casinos and everything.

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this, but "daily commute", even when it's not all that long, is consistently among the most hated timesinks. I don't think results like this are terribly surprising: http://www.economist.com/blogs.... A technical and economic advantage is you can do something else while "driving" between home and work, without taking on the compromises of public transit (which may not be available at all, may take a long time or be beholden to a schedule that's incompatible with your lifestyle, or may otherwise be unpleasant).

I can't *wait* to have a self-driving car.

I would expect that a concerted effort to resist change would both be a cause of reduced change, and reflective of a lesser cultural desire to introduce change. Therefore I would expect French to absorb other languages less.

I expect French still has a relatively high rate of absorption because to this day it still has a large number of second-language speakers and I suspect that's a big source of linguistic cross-contamination.

Nobody understands Lady Gaga.

You're clearly not above twisting it to political ends.

If both sides are doxing, and both sides are complaining about doxing, then both sides are clearly not above hypocrisy. QED.

(PEOPLE: It's not always about sides! You can say doxxing is wrong and admit that you agree with others who also say doxxing is wrong, even if those others have the opposite position on an unrelated issue).

I don't know exactly how long it would take to terraform, and I can grant that it may be less than it took Earth to bootstrap an oxygen atmosphere, but I suspect it's much much much much longer than a couple decades.

Depends what you mean by "from scratch".

http://singularityhub.com/2010...

To me, that qualifies as "from scratch", justified in the same manner that I justify people saying they made a pizza "from scratch" using store-bought tomatoes and mozzarella.

I don't quite know how to address this other than to say that I don't think anything you've said in this thread makes any sense. My best guess is maybe you didn't read his actual explanation and assumed it said something it does not?

Point by point:

- The (strange) strawman about a vegan who hates McRibs is an argument about why we shouldn't get mad at Tyson if he didn't make an explanation, but it does not argue against making an explanation in the first place. It's the one point where I agree with you, but it's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand.
- Explaining something to the masses does not mean you lost anything.
- Giving into criticism is not what he did (pulling his tweet or apologizing would be giving in).
- In this case I feel he was right not to give into criticism, but in general, I don't think it's good to imply that giving into criticism is necessarily wrong.
- I don't see any appeasement from Tyson.
- Talking about a thing doesn't in any way imply that what you previously said about that thing may be wrong.
- I had to look up "hamstering" on urban dictionary, and I have to disagree that he did that at all.
- "It's not what men do"? That's a literary flourish without any meat behind it.