Typical straw man argument thrown out by sexist SJW
Typical straw man argument thrown out by sexist SJW
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.
Sure, don't obey the law if you don't agree with it. I'm not judging, I'm just stating the facts.
As far as I know, the song was written exactly as a political commentary. It was quite popular when I was young. I'm from The Netherlands, and it was a German band that wrote it originally in German, 99 Luftballons:
Here's the original: Youtube
She later covered herself with a weird overly poppy version.
Haven't we had this discussion multiple times before?
Yes, Uber gives you a lower price.
Yes, it creates competition.
Yes, they act against almost all local laws.
Why play their game? Just pretend they don't exist and get on with your life.
Mark Saltzman, who falls into the last category, was so concerned by the time his third child was born that he wanted to engineer a better sunblock.
Little children don't belong in the sun, in my opinion. I dress my two year old such that only her face, hands and feet are exposed by clothing. Every hour or so, I apply sunscreen. During summer, we'll be outside of course but if possible in some sort of shaded place. I've seen small children burned red by the sun, and I'm amazed at the carelessness. Better your child is hot than burned, right?
That was my pet peeve. Besides that, I applaud this research.
What, you've never seen the "Your Porn Online" section?
Does it feature Bennett Haselton and CowboyNeal?
every site I browse now appears to be Russian porn.
Which apparently includes Slashdot. Is there some Slashdot section I don't know about?
I use two monitors, but I often "lose" my mouse pointer for some reason. Don't you have the same?
That's exactly how I work, too. And when I say exactly, I mean that my desktops have the exact same content as well
I've never seen anyone else working the same, really. Virtual desktops are even among developers not that popular.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for some great pointers! I'm confident in my skills as a developer but I have to admit I can do better than this.
Really appreciate your replies.
No line available at 300 baud.