Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47785153) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

The problem here is that what is desired ins't some greater understanding of why someone makes a personal choice, the problem is that what is desired is some prescriptive solution to what is *assumed* to be a problem.

If you go into the "why" question, assuming the answer, you're eventually going to find it what you're looking for, but that's *not* going to be the truth.

The primal mistaken assumption here is that men and women are not different. They are. Physically, mentally, emotionally, biologically, they are significantly different from each other. Hell, even *within* the sexes there are all kinds of differences of spectrum!

If anything, what we should be doing is the opposite - find areas where there are even splits between men and women, and find out *why*. Because *that* is the unnatural state, *that* is something worth understanding.

What's your bet that nobody cares that Pinterest is dominated by women? Or that the Oxygen channel is viewed mostly by women? Or that cooking shows are viewed mostly by women? The attack on male dominated areas is a transparent victimhood ploy, not a quest for understanding.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47785075) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

As mentioned in my comment:

"This differs from gender significantly, though, since there are real, biological and neurological differences between the sexes, whereas race is an arbitrary social construct."

You can argue there are discernible "masculine" and "feminine" cultures in the US, but those are generally driven by the real sex differences.

Black skin, on the other hand, does not create thug culture - the soft and hard bigotry of low expectations does.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47785021) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

Full quote, for context:

> No doubt, history is filled with all kinds of evil misogyny, racism, and homophobia...and large swaths of the planet still have those problems, especially in the islamic world.

1) sadly, most dark skinned folk in the US are affected by thug culture - this causes all kinds of poor outcomes, including lifespan and prison representation;
2) http://online.wsj.com/news/art...

Freedom to choose thug culture, or non-boardroom careers, or lower wage careers does not mean the rest of the world is imposing these decisions upon others.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47784989) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

WHY is there an imbalance, and is it something we can potentially fix.

If individuals have been given the freedom to make choices, then it doesn't *matter* why there is an imbalance - nothing needs to be fixed. We need to respect the choices of free people.

If you find something that limits their freedom (say, sysadmins deleting feminine accounts), you need to fix that. Active exclusion reducing individual choices (regardless of gender), is wrong.

Comment: Re:Ocean heat content is rising - Levitus 2012 (Score 1) 473

by Layzej (#47782971) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all)

I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA

Ha ha ha ha! Nailed it didn't I! Tell me more about your 911 truther or birther theories!

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 1) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47782325) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

what explanation do you have for a lack of a normal distribution?

Freedom of choice, and wildly varying individual choices. In regards to race in particular, choices made have very little to do with blood line or skin color, and much more to do with culture and upbringing. This differs from gender significantly, though, since there are real, biological and neurological differences between the sexes, whereas race is an arbitrary social construct.

Now, you could make the argument that one doesn't "choose" to be born into a thug culture that promotes the knock-out game, gang banging, assaulting strangers who might be packing heat, or robbing convenience stores before assaulting police...but whether or not you embrace or deny the culture you're raised in ultimately comes down to personal responsibility.

Comment: Re:Could have fooled me (Score 4, Insightful) 169

by quantaman (#47781951) Attached to: Canada Tops List of Most Science-Literate Countries

I am canadian, and if we are the most scientiically literate. I really pity the rest of you.

I pity us also. Does Canada have lots of relatively successful* politicians with whackadoodle opinions on climate change, Earth's age, and female reproductive biology?

* In terms of votes, not intelligence ranking.

True but it's much more a piece of trivia than a politically relevant fact.

A few years back I remember an article about Stephan Dion and Jack Layton (the then leaders of the 2nd and 3rd largest parties in a minority Parliament) claiming they were both atheists.

I don't know if it was true or not, I honestly didn't care that much. The astounding thing was that was the opinion shared by the overwhelming majority of online comments on the website of what I recall was a right wing paper. A few engaged in mild speculation but no one really cared enough to even dig or get emotional.

These were the 2nd and 3rd most important politicians in the country and the topic of their religious affiliation was so irrelevant people scarcely bothered to investigate.

By contrast the US is so obsessed with religion that congress doesn't have a single open atheist. Not to mention the massive religious examinations of presidential candidates.

Sure this stuff does become relevant, particularly with regards to climate change, but we have nowhere near the culture wars that are going on in the US.

Comment: Re:why the focus on gender balance? (Score 5, Insightful) 411

by hsthompson69 (#47781845) Attached to: Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

I like that - "actors instead of objects". That's a great turn of phrase.

And it emphasizes that any sort of gender/race/sexual orientation re-balancing is at its essence *objectifying* people. It's asserting that they must be defined by some label, and must obey some sort of normal distribution because of that label.

No doubt, history is filled with all kinds of evil misogyny, racism, and homophobia...and large swaths of the planet still have those problems, especially in the islamic world. But we lose sight of the truth, that people are individual *actors*, not *objects*, all too often. Fighting the scourges of discrimination of various sorts doesn't lead to some predetermined statistical balance, it gives individual actors the *freedom* to make the choices they'd like. Sometimes, those free choices are lopsided, and that's *okay*.

Comment: Re:Inevitable (Score 1) 741

by hsthompson69 (#47781019) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

it makes clear the overwhelming importance of the eastern front,

No doubt, the USSR threw lives like candy at the Nazis, and the failed 1940 negotiations effectively put the Germans on shaky ground. But I wouldn't go so far as to assert that the death toll between the western and eastern fronts are a good metric for deciding how important the US was to the war effort.

"[The USA] took over the bulk of the military responsibilities of European allies"

I meant *after* WW2 was won - our occupation forces in west germany, and other parts west of the iron curtain, effectively provided our European allies with militaries they didn't need to maintain against the Soviets.

One bloodthirsty dictator beating another (slightly more) bloodthirsty dictator isn't quite as good a story as "America, World Police", but it's closer to the mark.

Actually, given Stalin's purges, one could argue that it was a bloodthirsty dictator beating another slightly *less* bloodthirsty dictator :)

I was always confused playing WW2 miniatures games as a kid in the 80s because the russians in 1984 were the "evil empire", but they were allies in WW2...took a lot of reading to figure out how that all fit together. But I'll argue that WW2 was really police academy for "America, World Police", and that the cold war really cemented our role there for the greater part of the latter 20th century. As we look at America's decline, especially during the Obama years, the pussies of the world will be wondering why the dicks aren't around to fuck the assholes who are shitting all over them.

Comment: Re:Inevitable (Score 1) 741

by hsthompson69 (#47779349) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Regarding the Russo-Georgian war, and effective tools like economic sanctions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

"US sanctions against Russia imposed by the Bush administration were lifted by the Obama administration in May 2010."

At least Bush sent in aid with military craft:

"Although the Bush administration considered a military response to defend Georgia, it was ruled out because of the conflict it would provoke with Russia. Instead, Bush opted to send humanitarian supplies to Georgia on military (rather than civilian) aircraft."

Any word on what the US is doing to help Ukraine?

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN

Working...