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 ... well, I'd keep my mouth shut :-)

It's anything but obvious.

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.

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.)

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?")

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.

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...

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 /. commenters are mostly misogynistic most of the time" are made, and then the claimers go silent when asked for proof...)

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.

No one pays to see me :-(

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?

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.

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?

Which is precisely why the EU would not want Greece to break away from the Euro. Because Greece is a sovereign nation they can peg the value of the scrip (Drachma) to whatever they want. It will be set artificially high on the day of the break-away and all debts will be considered in Drachma (sovereign nation, remember!). A year later when they finally pay (and the drachma is 1/10th of it's value) the creditors get an effective 1/10th of their debt while the debtor gets to settle their debt for 10c on the Euro.

The value of the labour is not what sets a country's currency value anyway, it's the value of the country.

There's always one reason - with a single currency between a group of countries the weaker economies will always be at a disadvantage *because* they have no control over the money supply. Without control over the money supply you can forget trying to control the economy. This is the primary reason few countries use commodity backed-currencies (gold, silver, etc) - they have no control over the supply of the commodity and hence they cannot control the economy.

That's the problem with gold and silver - you have to actively trade goods and services in order to accumulate it. What happens when technology and human innovation and efficiency proceeds at a rate several orders of magnitudes greater than the mining of gold and silver[1]? With gold/silver you cannot match value against currency in a stable and consistent manner. With fiat money you can.

[1]Like with the mass-production of the transistor, or the last two decades of efficiency improvements due to computers, etc.

It's a non-problem. If a country cannot control the money supply they are left with few options to control their economy. Using interest rates and money supply a central bank can very strictly control all aspects of their economy (spiraling debt, runaway inflation, etc). Greece does not control their own money supply.

There will always be a weakest state in the EU; almost just by definition alone that weakest state will face trade deficits with the rest of the EU. With no way to control their own currency they will get weaker and weaker unless the rest of the EU keeps them afloat.

Lets say that the EU /doesn't/ keep that weakest state afloat... with no other option the weakest state will eventually be forced to leave the EU and start printing its own money (or scrips, as you referred above to them). This leaves the creditors of that state in the unenviable position of being forced to either forfeit the debt or accept the newly issued money at a certain exchange rate; a rate which will be set artificially high by the state purely to offset as much of the debt as possible.

The best chance the creditors have to get their money back eventually is to ensure that the weakest state remains in the EU... Because, you see, once that weakest state leaves the EU and discharges its debt with worthless scrip, there will be another "weakest state" in the EU! The process will then repeat for that state too, even faster this time because the new weakest-EU-state saw how the previous-weakest-EU-state got a whole lot of money from creditors and didn't have to pay it back!

So, now it's Greece; if Greece leaves EU without fulfilling its debt obligations to Germany, then the new weakest state might be.... Portugal? Someone, at any rate. After two years this Greece process will repeat with that new weakest state. And so on, until only two states are using Euros.

So the EU cannot do anything that will cause a country to leave. They know this. We know this. Anyone who's ever been a creditor knows this. You never let your debtor go bankrupt until after they've settled their debt to you.

After all getting *most* of your money back is better than getting almost nothing (or, in the case of Greece, nothing at all).

If Greece only owed a little then the EU might let them leave in a huff - the scrip they offer might offset that small amount they owe. But Greece owes a lot, more than the EU can afford to write off as a bad debt.

And all this because weak countries will be unable to focus their economies due to having no control over the money supply

TLDR:- There's a saying amongst capitalists, venture or otherwise: If you owe your bank $100,000 and cannot settle it then you have a problem. If you owe your bank $100 million and cannot pay, then it's your bank that has a problem. It's not Greece that has the problem, it's the EU!

Then why are they SJW's?

Who, other than AC's, are actually saying this? The only hate, abuse and insults are coming from the SJW camps. You just called all nerds whiny virgins.

It's very important to read your references before your cite them. From the very first link of the search that you provided(wikipedia, second paragraph):

and

Certainly doesn't sound like a counterweight to "womens studies".