Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:ENOUGH with the politics! (Score 1) 1094

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"?

Comment Re: Again? (Score 1) 613

Where as the studies I've seen show a significant pay gap even for graduates (so that rules out an experience difference for either sex). That men work more hours is itself a result of a sexism society that expects them to devote more time to work and less to family while demanding and allowing the opposite of women. The fix isn't to have women work harder but to respect the role of fathers more so men work less - which should conveniently reduce unemployment because when you can't expect two men to do the job of three you need to actually hire a third. Feminists in general would agree with all I just said. Feminism however is decidedly not a homogeneous group. Eve Ensler is considered a hero by second wave feminists and hugely problematic by third wave. Third wave feminists want sex work legalised and 2nd wave fights them on it. I mostly identify as a third wave sex-positive choice respecting polyamorous feminist and I also identify as male. There is no conflict there. You say feminists don't police the crazies: perhaps but we definitely call them out. It's the most infighting movement I've ever been in. Feminists spend more time arguing with other feminists than they do anything else. For every article a feminist writes about rape three gets written attacking TERFS who consider themselves feminists and tend to respond with horrified no true Scotsmen. But we don't censor them. Anymore than we censor anybody else. We just call them out and deny them platforms. In the end a few misandrists are a tiny problem next to massive systemic misogyny. Every feminist I know would be appalled at what happened to that man. But I can imagine some of the more militant second wave feminists doing that. Luckily second wave is a dying breed. They lost the sex wars with third wavers and what's left now is just a few old battle scarred soldiers still fighting a long lost war afraid of their own irrelevance. And like every old soldier in the bar - they are loud. Loud but best ignored until death finally brings them the peace they never found in life.
My daughter is one year old. I'm a feminist because I want her to have a safer life than her mother does and true freedom to pursue her dreams and never be told "girls can't do thst'. She is not and never will be my pretty girl (despite being gorgeous ) she's my clever girl.
When she is old enough to have sex who she fucks is none of my business. I'll never threaten her partners with a shotgun. It's her body and I respect her right to exclusively choose who she shares it with. I'm a feminist because I demand everybody else respects that right too. Whether that's one or one thousand it's her choice and I don't believe anybody has the right to shame her for it.

Comment Re:You got me to jump through hoops - congrats (Score 1) 776

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?

Comment Re:Is it a Mad Max movie though ? (Score 1) 776

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.

Comment Re:Is it a Mad Max movie though ? (Score 1) 776

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.

Comment Re:Men's Rights morons (Score 1) 776

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

Comment Re:Fuck you. (Score 1) 618

>You know what ACTUAL theft is? Consuming someone's product (ie. visiting an ad-supported web site) and then refusing to pay (ie. allow the ads to be shown). If you want a moral and ethical ad-blocker, implement a plug-in that refuses to let you visit any site whose ads you don't want displayed, or which allows you to pay micro-payments per visit.

This may have been true once when most ads were shown on a pay-per-view basis, but nobody does that anymore because it's to easy to cheat and it costs too much. These days ads are shown on a pay-per-click basis - which is a lot more realistic in terms of value gained by the advertiser, it also means that adblockers in fact represent ZERO lost revenue or theft since those who enable them has an almost 100% overlap with "people who wouldn't have clicked on the ad anyway". If you put "people with adblockers" and "people who don't click on ads" as a red and blue circle on a VENN diagram what you get is a giant purple blob with maybe a tiny red and blue line on either side.
It's very much the same as the reason the do-not-call list hasn't significantly impact the profitability of telemarketing, if anything it made it slightly more profitable as they can avoid wasting time and money phoning people who would never buy something from a telemarketer anyway.

The illusion that you would make more money if people didn't have adblockers is based on a completely false assumption about human behavior. Ads can be very effective at creating want - but not when their mere existence has already created dislike. Those who hate ads, are the ones least likely to buy anything based on that type of advertising - simply because the negative emotions associated with seeing the add overwhelms whatever emotional effect the ad was intended to produce.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The four building blocks of the universe are fire, water, gravel and vinyl." -- Dave Barry

Working...