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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Diversity gap is irrelevant (Score 1) 174

That is one advantage, yes. If one is perceived to have earned their position through hard work/talent then one is more likely to continue to advance because they will be considered for future promotions/opportunities. If one is perceived to have gotten their position as a handout, then one is less likely to advance further because they will be less likely to be considered for future promotions/opportunities.

Another disadvantage of being perceived to have gotten a position through affirmative action is that it's really easy to internalize those perceptions which will further hinder performance. Everyone has experienced impostor syndrome or feelings that they are in over their head even when they are absolutely capable and doing a great job, but when those feelings are being reinforced by others attributing success to handouts rather than ability, or that any good work they do is luck (or due to someone else helping), it's a very difficult thing to dismiss that.

Personally, I loathe affirmative action because it leads to exactly this kind of bullshit. There are better solutions to the inequality caused by systemic prejudice than affirmative action, and it would be a good thing to find them.

Comment Re:Diversity gap is irrelevant (Score 1) 174

While I agree that poverty should be a factor in these kinds of programs, there is still the difference that it's very unlikely that a poor white male from Appalachia who does manage to get into a desirable position probably is going to be told that it's due to affirmative action instead of his natural abilities.

Basically, it sucks to be poor, but being white is still an advantage. Rather be poor and white any day over being poor and black, no question what-so-ever.

Comment Re:No "morally acceptable" sites? (Score 1) 705

There are numerous studies in which a majority of people admit to cheating on their spouses or partners. When I say "a majority" I mean, in some studies, the rate of people admitting to infidelity (both genders) was around 70%.

(Just google "percentage of people who cheat on their spouse" and you'll get what I found)

Take into account that some people would never admit to it, even if promised absolute privacy and the rates are likely higher.

Is something still traditional if most people don't actually abide by that tradition? Or maybe the tradition is to claim you're faithful but then cheat and feel like shit about it? Humans are pretty weird.

Comment Re:use this one neat trick (Score 3, Insightful) 365

Pretty much exactly that.

In my experience, people learning a little bit about programming tend to also learn to respect the fact that there's a ton of stuff they don't know. Yeah, I've run into some who think a single run through of some "Learn X in 24 Hours" book makes them a developer, but they're the minority.

What's really valuable about "everyone" being exposed to programming is that it helps them learn to think about problem solving in a usually different way. Where I work, we had our entire product management team go through a week long programming bootcamp and it's been AMAZING in improving the quality of the specs they write. They aren't under the impression that they're developers but they definitely have a better appreciation for what we do.

And, we developers went through a product bootcamp as well so that we had a better understanding of what they do and more insight into what is driving some of the things they ask for.

More knowledge and understanding is very rarely a bad thing.

Comment Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking? (Score 1) 412

I make a post explaining that because of the historical context, his "joke" wasn't funny.

You made a post explaining to me why his joke was funny.

I made a couple of "jokes" that were identical in form and historical context to his, pointing out the absurdity of your point.

You respond by saying I don't get humor and that I lack reading comprehension. It's pretty clear you didn't find my "jokes" funny, despite them being fundamentally the same in tone and historical context.

One of us isn't following along here, and it's very obviously you.

Comment Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking? (Score 1) 412

You're totally right.

The reason blacks shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they are childlike proto-humans, incapable of higher cognitive functioning. TEE HEE!

The reason Mexicans shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they sleep all day and then steal all the equipment before they head home for the night. TEE HEE!

The reason white males shouldn't be allowed in labs is because they will try to rape and/or subjugate anyone else, and then whine like crazy if anyone calls them on it. TEE HEE!

Yep, seriously totally hillarious. Thanks for setting me straight.

Comment Re:Huh? Wasn't it clear that he was joking? (Score 1) 412

The problem here is that the joke is literally what people have said about why they won't hire women into all male teams.

The argument is frequently made that having a woman on the team would be a distraction/damage unit cohesion/reduce morale/require everyone to mind their p's and q's lest they invoke feminine tears/be pointless because they're only looking to meet a husband etc. etc. etc.

It's not very funny when one has likely heard that exact line of reasoning, said in earnest, as to why they aren't wanted on a team. He's likely not, at least consciously, misogynist, but he's certainly tone deaf.

Comment Re:And what's the problem? (Score 1) 413

So, I specifically said state universities would be free to those who qualify. If someone wanted to go to a private institution they could certainly go into crippling debt in order to attend if they so chose.

And, really, I probably wouldn't care much if more people went to university, even if they weren't really qualified. People spending more time in school isn't a bad thing.

And further, I'm sure "the market" will fend for itself when it comes to filtering out idiots; it's just that people won't have crippling student loan debt that will make them so desperate for work that they'll be willing to let their employers bend them over in order to accept a shitty, low paying job.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it - employers would actually have to offer something in order to attract workers because the workers won't be desperate anymore. I've known people who've taken very, very shitty jobs and worked in abusive environments for years out of fear of losing their health insurance or being unable to pay for school loans - that's pretty fucked up.

Comment And what's the problem? (Score 3, Insightful) 413

I say guarantee basic services (phone, basic cable, broadband), basic accommodations (place to live, food), and basic health (medical insurance) for those who need it. Provide life and job skills classes open to anyone who wants to attend. Make state university free of charge for those who qualify (via academic track record and testing), vocational training (plumbing, culinary, whatever) free for those who don't qualify for university.

Spread the housing across a given community, rather than concentrating it in one place, to prevent things like a project mentality and generational poverty mindset.

It would be vastly less expensive than the costs we pay for police, prison and emergency services, safer for everyone else, and overall reduce human suffering.

Most people would be happy to work an actual job and pay taxes in order to have "better than the bare minimum" for all of the above and the ability to do things like have food that isn't just staples, go on vacation, have more living space, etc.

For people who don't want more, or who can't work for more, at least this would keep them off of the streets to some extent, and keep them from getting so desperate they resort to crime just to survive.

I have zero problem with my taxes going to pay for such things because, not being an idiot, I'm aware that the alternative (what we have right now) is VASTLY more expensive by pretty much every metric.

Comment Re:oh please. I'm tired of this "diversity" bullsh (Score 4, Interesting) 493

Weirdly enough, women were quite well represented in technology before the 80s. Clearly there was an interest - so what's changed?

Women in other countries are somewhat more well represented in technology and more likely to go into STEM fields - so what are those other countries doing differently?

There are a number of things that make a strong case for the reasons women aren't well represented in tech being related to artificial issues rather than natural tendencies.

Tech isn't singled out as the one and only important field, by the way. I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but if you look at most any field with a lopsided gender ratio you'll see concern about the gender imbalance and efforts to remedy it. Nursing programs will aggressively pursue male candidates, same for elementary teaching, for example.

In any case, my guess as to why tech is singled out is not that tech is singled out, but that you're probably primarily reading tech sites where this gets discussed, so it just seems that way.

Comment Re:WTF? (Score 1) 493

A willingness to give partial credit for work shown, even if the ultimate answer was wrong, and other things like that. They may be more willing, in this case, to assume that the boy with the wrong answer was on the right track, while the girl with the wrong answer was just flailing around and guessing, even when the provided answers and work were the same.

Comment Re:Enough already! (Score 1) 254

I see, it's not just ignorance - it's willful ignorance that forms the basis for your factually incorrect opinions, and when challenged on your ignorance, you lash out incoherently.

I'm sure you imagine you have a point - given that your stated opinions have no basis in fact, you probably imagine all kinds of crazy things are true. Please also feel free to imagine that you've put me in my place, if you like. I certainly don't see any point to continuing this discussion; I won't try to reason with someone clearly lacking it.

Comment Re:Enough already! (Score 1) 254

Except that there is a push to get more men into elementary teaching. And there is a push to get more men in to other industries dominated by women, like nursing.

You seem to have a very strongly held opinion (at least one that's strong enough to comment about and bash "SJW"s) that is clearly based at least in part on ignorance. I'd suggest learning more - not only will it help you avoid embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance, but it might even help you revise your opinions.

Also, side note, one of the reasons nobody gives much of a shit about there not being enough white players on pro basketball teams is because, statistically speaking, it isn't remotely relevant. How many pro NBA players are there? Now compare that to fields like software development or IT. Which one of those groups is more relevant for the average person who wishes to achieve upward mobility and has better odds?

Additionally, you're also ignoring the fact that white people were not, historically speaking, forbidden from playing in professional sports leagues and were not harassed and threatened (at least not for their race) when they joining the leagues. The fact that you so blithely ignore historical fact, once again, says to me that you form your opinions out of ignorance. Again, I suggest learning more so that you don't embarrass yourself by spouting off your uninformed nonsense.

Comment Re: Honest question. (Score 1) 479

Exactly that.

The extra information is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that his idiot identified as a feminist, and it didn't matter that the creep I described identified as a men's right's activist. They are an idiot and a creep, respectively, and it says absolutely nothing about other people who may have some label in common.

Comment Re:Qualifications (Score 1) 479

Given that I didn't say whatever it is you think I said, I'm not entirely sure why you seem so miffed.

I said that by changing the way they presented the company they were able to appeal to a segment of the workforce that previously had not been applying. I said nothing about what men value or that men stopped applying, just that more women began applying after they emphasized certain existing benefits.

In fact, given that I described the company's engineering group as mostly married men with children, and those benefits were already existing, one could infer that men can (and do) value child care and work/life balance.

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Working...