So here we have a paper about *sexism*, garnering a review that is egregiously, over-the-top sexist in nature.
So, this would suggest to me (not by any means an expert) that the reviewer was quite aware of what he was saying -- he was being sarcastic, and/or trying to be funny. In other words, the over-the-top sexist tone was deliberate.
Wise? Probably not. But people often try to make points in misguided ways, and of those, sarcasm probably leads the pack. I'm reminded of the Justine Sacco controversy. Sacco, if you recall, was the flack who tweeted: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just Kidding. I'm White!" So all the Right-Thinking People were all outraged. Except, Sacco is a Good Progressive. Her tweet was (obviously, to some of us) an attempt to sarcastically tweak White Privilege. (Picture her saying it while rolling her eyes.)
Same idea might apply here.
Hey, Mr. Science: Were you trying to give us textbook examples of both Argument Ad Hominem and Appeal to Authority?
Save me your sputtering but nonsensical reply (which is what you guys ALWAYS respond with, every time, without fail). tompaulco presented facts. Are they correct? I don't know - but I know even less after your reply, which just makes everyone who reads it a little stupider. If the information exists to refute it
You know, you probably tell yourself, "I'm not a complete asshole in real life. It's just kind of like this persona I play when I'm online."
Well, you TELL yourself that....
I'd like to be able to ask Facebook:
"Out of all the hundreds of millions of Facebook users, which ones look the most like me?"
Wouldn't that be cool?
No, no, he was talking about Japan, right? Or, no, wait -- Switzerland?
Well, let's see what Google ("World's most peaceful countries") gives us.
Iceland tops that list, followed by Denmark, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Canada, Japan, Belgium and Norway.
[Scanning list for diversity]
Bottom line: Evidence that more homogeneity means more strife =
You live in a libertarian fantasy land where wages have much at all to do with competition.
I don't understand. I've read that for most large companies, at least, wages and associated benefits are their primary expense. Is that not true? I didn't read it in some libertarian fantasy newsletter -- it was on Forbes or the WSJ or something.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) just announced that it will be spending $31 million to "enhance diversity in the biomedical research workforce."
$31 million seem like it would buy
Maybe some of the money could be diverted toward actual research like this.
Link to Original Source
I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?
If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.
My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.
Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?
Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.