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


Forgot your password?

Comment Deconstructing diversity in tech (Score 0) 685

Lets break it all down.

1) The desire to have a diverse workforce is inherently prejudicial. The workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex, not their race.
2) When women express a desire for more diversity in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex.
3) When men express a desire not to have women in tech, they are being sexist. Workers should be judged on their abilities, not their sex.
4) When men express that their anger at the push for diversity in tech, they are complaining that they are the victims of sexism.
5) We need wives and mothers. If we don't have them, we will all die of deprivation when we reach retirement age.
6) We don't need computer programmers. Nice to have, but we can totally do without it.
7) When industry leaders express that there is a need for diversity in technology, they are not expressing a desire to be inclusive, rather, they are expressing a desire to coerce women to abandon other roles and serve them, regardless of the larger needs of society. They are acting in the best interests of themselves, and themselves only.

In summation, every person who expresses a desire for more diversity in tech is prejudicial, and a bully. You do not occupy the moral high ground, and you should stop.

Comment Re: Likewise (Score 3, Insightful) 536

Y'know how you can tell women are crazy?

They used to do things that men liked. Then, they all got together and set their bras on fire, and marched in the streets, and said "WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THINGS THAT YOU LIKE".

And, in an effort to get them to shut up, we agreed. Now, they don't do things that we like any more, and now, outside of fucking them, we don't particularly like them.

And now, having excised every character trait they had that made us like them for their deeds, they say that we've reduced them to sex objects.

They reduced themselves to sex objects.

On a completely different note, here's a wikipedia link to a newspaper advertisement selling sex robots for women in 1913.

Comment Re: Theory (Score 1) 591

Real science takes the form of, if you do this, that will happen; try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

This is what gives it the power to overturn popular opinion.

If it fails to uphold this standard, it's nothing but deduction and no better than myth.

People have ridden on the coattails of "scientific credibility" for a long time, hiding the fact that it's not science that they're doing by presenting a suitable image to the world, to the point that the word has mostly lost its meaning.

Listening to creationists argue with athiests about the origin is amusing because generally speaking, the creationists don't understand religion, the athiests don't understand science, and nothing is ever said that changes how anybody behaves in the slightest.

Comment Re:Theory (Score 1) 591

It may be a fact. It may not be a fact. But it is an irrelevant piece of information that doesn't guide a persons actions when they get up in the morning, which is why people continue to fight over it, because you can't conclusively settle something that doesn't really matter one way or the other.

At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of bullies trying to force you to bow to their favorite myth.

Comment Re: Alert! (Score 1) 370

No, you're moronic.

The whole point of science in the first place is that I don't need to trust anyone, I can personally confirm things for myself.

That's the whole point of the scientific method.

An assertion that isn't accompanied with a set of steps that I can use to confirm it for myself it just another myth.

Science is what allows one man alone to present an assertion that a rational actor could embrace even though there is a consensus that he is wrong.

Science is what allows one man alone to assert that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around, and have people embrace this assertion and make choices that improve their chance to survive and thrive, despite there being consensus that he is wrong.

Anyone who thinks "scientific consensus" means anything is a grade a moron.

People are always available for work in the past tense.