Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: equilibrium (Score 1) 1082

by buddyglass (#49732377) Attached to: Los Angeles Raises Minimum Wage To $15 an Hour

An editorial from the LA Times says it's vital for other cities nearby to increase their minimum wage, too, else businesses will gradually migrate to cheaper locations.

Even if the surrounding cities don't raise their minimum wage levels, businesses in those cities will have to start paying their hourly employees more because of increased hourly wages in nearby Los Angeles. Why would I work at McDonald's for $8/hr in a suburb when I could drive an extra 10 minutes and make $15/hr at a McDonald's in L.A.? Answer: I wouldn't. Ergo the McDonald's in the burbs will have to offer a wage that at least approaches the current L.A. wage or it will struggle to hire staff.

Comment: Re: You can't make this shit up. (Score 1) 774

Seriously? You're going to claim that RoK explicitly confirming the diametric opposition of the MRM and PUA ideologies is somehow proof that RoK is part of the MRM instead of opposed to it?

First off, RoK doesn't explicitly reject PUA. It rejects MRM, but in rejecting the MRM it seems to define the movement differently than how those in that movement would define it. So RoK is distancing itself from something, perhaps certain segments of the MRM, but not the MRM as a whole.

What about the reverse? Would most guys in the MRM be shocked and horrified if they read a random sampling of articles from RoK?

Comment: Re: You can't make this shit up. (Score 1) 774

Is RoK solely a PUA blog? Doesn't seem to be. The wikipedia page on the "Men's Rights Movement" lists RoK as a "site dedicated to men's rights issues". And no I didn't just edit it. So we've got:

1. RoK founded by a guy (RooshV) who is closely tied to the PUA community.
2. Wikipedia calling RoK a "site dedicated to men's rights issues".
3. RoK making no mention of PUA in its rather lengthy "About" section.
4. RoK explicitly disassociating itself from the MRM, but only by redefining the MRM in a way that's not entirely accurate.

To the extent it makes sense to draw a line between the MRM and RoK, though, I'll modify my claim: "There is significant overlap between those who share the stated goals of RoK, which have nothing to do with PUA, and the PUA community."

Comment: Re:Metorite cult (Score 1) 190

by buddyglass (#49715567) Attached to: Arab Mars Probe Planned For 2020
Doesn't seem to explain the full biblical account. The voices he heard, for one, but also the claim that the "scales fell off his eyes" immediately after he was prayed for by Annanias. Of course you could argue those bits are fictional. The fact remains, though, that Saul was already "religious" prior to his experience on the road to Damascus.

Comment: Re: You can't make this shit up. (Score 1) 774

I'm thick. How is Clarey distancing himself from the Men's Rights' movement proof of there being no significant overlap between the Men's Rights' and Seduction communities? To be fair, I may have mis-used the terms "Men's Rights'" when referring to folks like Clarey and, by extension, blogs like Return of Kings, since they (and it) explicitly reject that label. So I'll amend my position to be, "There is significant overlap between {men who strongly identify with the point of view of blogs like Return of Kings} and the pick-up artist community." That is, I would expect the average PUA community member to be highly sympathetic to the views expressed on Return of Kings.

Comment: Re:new acronym (Score 1) 612

by buddyglass (#49713151) Attached to: A Plan On How To Stop Sexism In Science

It doesn't make any sense to complain the term is pejorative. Any term those of us who find Social Justice Warriors repugnant uses to describe them will be pejorative, just as "liberal" is to a conservative or vice-versa.

I'm not complaining about the fact that it's pejorative. I was responding in disagreement to another poster who claimed it is not pejorative. "Liberal" isn't per se pejorative because it is frequently used in a non-pejorative sense. Liberals call themselves "liberals", for instance. "SJW", on the other hand, is almost exclusively used by folks who mean to evoke a connotation of contempt and/or disapproval. Which is pretty much exactly the definition of "pejorative".

Comment: Re:What the hell? (Score 1) 529

by buddyglass (#49712851) Attached to: Harvard Hit With Racial Bias Complaint
There is no single metric, true. But there are guidelines. We can look at Harvard's student body and objectively derive a profile based on numerically quantifiable traits (SAT scores + class rank). For instance, if 95% of Harvard undergrads scored above X on the SAT and 95% of Harvard undergrads had a class rank higher than Y then X and Y together define the type of student who has a reasonable chance of being admitted to Harvard.

I suspect Asians' share graduating high school seniors fitting the "Harvard profile" is higher than Asians' share of the general population. It's not their share of the general population that matters when trying to estimate whether they're "over" or "under" represented at Harvard, but their share of the set of the population with a reasonable chance at being admitted to Harvard.

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.