The reason is because only a relative few readers are qualified to discuss the latest in astrophysics, let's say, but anyone can jump in and talk about politics.
Therein lies the problem.
Look up the bike-shed problem.
Sure, more little dollars for everyone! Anyone bother to think of the ramifications involving this country printing money every 6 months just to keep the governments doors open? They call it hyperinflation and raising minimum wage is a component of that. Want to see where that road goes? Take a good look at South Africa.
You're confused. I'm in South Africa. I live here. We have never had hyperinflation. Perhaps you meant "Zimbabwe"?
Not going looking to play a pathetic little deliberately time wasting game while time was short is of course the reason - and where did the +3 come from? New goalpost shift from the shitting seagull by the looks.
Here - Eat your words: you said more than one comment floated to +3 If you aren't prepared to eat your words, you shouldn't say them!
Here's an entire article with a vast number of comments along those lines: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Too old? Then let's try this one: http://science.slashdot.org/st...
Ah. So when you claimed that comments about women being unsuitable for tech were at +3, you meant in a different story?
That's actually quite funny, I assumed that you were making claims about that story. Why on earth would I suddenly post comments about different stories?
So not being content with flying in from nowhere and shitting all over me, refusing to justify why then buggering off, you now want me to go off on a fishing expedition? Why do I have to provide proof (which you've ALREADY SEEN FFS) while you get to attack me for what your invisible strawman did?
You made the claim that numerous such posts exists. I couldn't find even one. Neither can you, it seems. There's no point in replying anymore - you can't find an example of such a comment/post, and neither can I.
Every fucking time there is a "women in IT" or "women in STEM" article on this site there are plenty, are you really telling me you have not seen at least a dozen by now?
You said
Some of the AC shit about how women have unsuitable brains etc has floated up to 3 or more.
yeah, I don't believe you: prove me wrong and link to one, please.
What does that have to do with empowerment?
It's got everything to do with fear. Man I tell you, if I was part of a demographic that was the majority in college degree's awarded and minority in deaths, incarceration, fatal disease, dangerous occupations, victim of violence, etc
Obviously it's a reply directly to a "poor me I can't do anything right" post but don't let your choice of pretending to be an idiot get in the way of reality.
It's anything but obvious.
By logic it applies only to "whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel" despite your attempt to show otherwise.
Nope - I even quoted it so that you won't get it wrong - parent in that thread said "Nerds are...", and you went ahead and replied "you forgot..."
You painted with a broad brush, and I called you out on it - all the abuse in that story is directed *to* nerds, not by them, and you happily joined the mob.
However you got very quiet instead of contesting the subject when I pointed out how far you were off the mark earlier, and here you are back without addressing it - so OK for you to dish it out but not me even when I wasn't actually dishing it out?
What mark? I got busy, it was a weekend after all, so for the fourth and final time, I ask you can point out the upvoted comment that you claimed was made that said "women are unsuitable for tech". You actually claimed that many such comments were made, IIRC, not just one.
(I actually understand: you have to *believe* that it exists. Because if it doesn't exist it means that you were part of the mindless mob. You don't want to believe that you'll be part of a mob.)
Yea, well you were not kept as slaves, killed for learning to read, beaten with inch and a quarter thick poles (often to death). Your families were not sold separately to different owners and broken up. You were not systematically excluded from education, jobs, housing, medical care for generations and eveb lynched for generations (as recently as the 1990s for several of those). The police don't selectively stop you, shoot you, arrest you while letting other races go without an arrest record.
He said he's Asian, so it's highly probable that someone in his ancestry endured all of that.
(PS. Every race was oppressed at one time or another. The line is drawn with the question "how far back was $FOO's oppression?", and not "were $FOOs ever oppressed?")
So, he's not allowed to say he's not, but because everyone says he is, then that's good enough for you?
I'm allowed to say that I'm LeBron James, but if people can clearly see that I'm not LeBron James, then no, it doesn't matter what I say I am or am not.
That's a different thing to what the article author is claiming. He's distancing himself from a group, he is not affiliating with a group. You, for example, are allowed to distance yourself from whichever group you want to, and you frequently do - you distance yourself regularly from equality groups/people whom you perceive as not being tough enough on males.
That's basically how group affiliation works.
No...because they feel that empowerment slipping away, and they fear payback.
Considering that men die more often on the job, more often off the job, in more violent ways and with higher chance of fatal disease and* kill themselves more often, I seriously wonder what it is "they" fear...
Of course, since you take things personally that are aimed in completely the opposite direction. Where is your apology for your accusation that I was attacking all geeks?
You really won't let this go, will you? Fair enough:
This post over here refers to all geeks. You reply to the post that refers to all geeks over here and add an item - " for being whiny virgins who feel they should have got a free supermodel".
When one refers to $FOO unqualified like you did, you refers to all $FOO. You could have said "$FOO, in general", "many $FOO", or even "some $FOO", "$FOO, usually", etc...
Now, how about addressing the fact that you said, in that thread, that *most* of the comments derogatory to women are upvoted, hmm? Now that I've shown you where you called all nerds whiny, you could show me where the upvoted comments that were derogatory to women are in that story?
(PS, I know you can't; this is not the first time the that claim "most
Madculinism got a bad name, that's why. In its pure form it is essentially the same as feminism, so most guys who believe that stuff just call themselves feminists. There are people who describe themselves as masculinists, but they are essentially just misogynists and people who want to act like dicks and justify it.
So, MRAs use a different name to emphasise that they are interested in the rights issues, of which there are some genuine ones. Unfortunately many of them could be described as masculinists, and again people who really care about the issues just call themselves feminists.
This has drifted somewhat - lately the people calling themselves feminists are promoting a "check your privilege" narrative, and are insane. The people calling themselves MRAs are promoting a "women are users" narrative, and are insane. The rest of us call ourselves egalitarian (and are not necessarily sane either, but it varies).
Really, it's an embarrassment to the human race that so many people are willing to self-identify with nutjobs like the authors of jezebel (or similar), or the author of the article in question.
I just got back from it and it is a Mad Max movie. There is a shitload of Mad Max. There are other characters also, so if you watched the first Mad Max, and were upset by there being other characters ("I didn't pay to see Goose!") then maybe don't go.
No one pays to see me
Who, other than AC's, are actually saying this?
Seems to be quite a lot of them
Wait, AC's are saying this and you extrapolate that to "most slashdot readers"? AC's post GNAA and similar shit too - do you also think that nerds have opinions on homosexual negro men? If not, why not?
? and people modding them up too.
Browse at -1. Please. I did, and most of the comments derogatory to women are below 0. And you know what, I *want* to believe that you saw posts at 2 or above saying that women are unsuitable for tech, but I haven't seen one. Care to link to one, *even* *if* *AC*? I'm not convinced that you are just repeating the narrative instead of actually reading the comments. I read the comments I didn't find the posts you seem to be talking about.
Maybe it's all Dice employees modding them up to stir the pot, but more likely people with an account who agree. Also I refuse to take responsibility for people taking comments personally when it's very clear that the comments are directed at the utter fuckwits that fit my insult precisely, and definitely not "all nerds".
So you understand why most posters here are refusing to take responsibility for something some fuckwit AC said about women not belonging in tech, and suddenly they are being told by SJW's that they are misogynistic if they don't see it? That they don't see it because of their privilege? You won't take responsibility for something you actually said, do you not understand why the rest of us won't take responsibility for thing we didn't actually say or do?
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
