The bottom line is that men and women are equally intelligent and equally capable of deciding for themselves which career path to follow. If most women don’t choose to become scientists then that’s their choice. It isn’t for the state to force them into it just so the ‘balance’ is right. This idiotic obsession with balance is harmful. Science isn’t advanced by making sure the correct percentages of men, women, whites, blacks, gays, etc are scientists, it’s advanced by getting the best people into science irrespective of their sex, race, sexual preference or shoe size.
The point is not to force the balance. The point is to notice the imbalance, and make sure that there are no social pressures that is causing that imbalance to persist.
I guess so, when you frame it as “something that should already be painfully obvious” or as “recreational outrage”
But at the same time, silence could embolden the guys you hate (Nazis in this case)
Dog whistles are as follows:
Let’s say I start spouting about liberal globalist shadow cartels, secretly controlling finance and government…
Some people see that as a nonsensical word salad. To a Nazi it means liberal jew bankers… or just jews… or just “anyone we hate”.
That’s a dog whistle. Too high for normal people but plainly audible to the sensitive ears of the audience you really want to reach. Hence the name “dog whistle”
I’ve always seen him as a shit stirrer. I can’t help that.
I said I think you could make a reasonable argument for either firing him or keeping him on. Either way, businesses are not obligated to let anyone say anything they want, and Google is well within their rights to make that decision based on their own culture. How is that different than what you are saying?
Oh, and in case it’s not clear, when I talk about constructive dialog, I’m not talking about Nazis. Trump and his white supremacist pals are reprehensible pieces of shit. I have no problem disagreeing with people on matters of policy, but I’m not going to sweet talk people who hold reprehensible or violent ideologies that openly advocate for the oppression of minorities. Growing up surrounding by that shit, with KKK members in my own family, I have very little tolerance for it.
Ummmm… no. With Google as a recent example, pretty much universally the call is for Google to hire more ______s. Not for Google to simply ensure that there are no social pressures that are causing the imbalance. No. The call is unilaterally to hire more ______s and less ______s. To force the balance.
Ummm, yes, read the post I was responding to.
This entire thread is not about google.
aldiboronti was talking about the “state” forcing a balance.
I speak from professional experience when I say that you’d be astounded how much gets accomplished “behind the scenes” by people who simply got on with things and didn’t make a huge public song and dance about it.
I don’t believe it is, not that any of this has fuck all to do with what I responded to earlier.
I decided to poop, I mean pop, into this thread again because I saw something dumb. I saw two people agreeing a strong conviction sex biases in various professions is rooted in sexism and patriarchy is as unjustifiable as having a strong conviction these patterns are due to biologically-based differences between the sexes. That’s a dumb idea. If you agree to such a silly equivocation, then you are a dummy. It’s possible people who hold such an opinion are unbelievably naive I guess. So one who holds such an opinion is either naive or a dummy.
Oh, is this how same sex marriage became the law of the land in Australia? It’s all behind the scenes among people who get on with things?
But you don’t actually have any interest in the evidence, or making an argument that supports your position, so I’m not sure why I’m stupid to avoid unequivocal statements one way or another. Like I actually was interested in what you had to say, as in what evidence has brought you to your conclusion, because I’m interested in learning. And you’re shitting all over me for no apparent reason.
Not in Australia because of political reasons, but I’m pretty sure that’s what happened in New Zealand.
If the pollies here just got on with it and legalised it one day when no-one was looking, I guarantee there’d be a week or two of hateful idiots raging about it then they’d forget about it and look for something else to be idiots about, and the rest of us could get on with our lives in peace.
Also, I didn’t say “working behind the scenes solves everything and always gets results”, just that it works a surprisingly often and in ways that people don’t even realise it’s been done.
Actually, it takes all kinds to make meaningful social change. The quiet, introverted behind-the-scenes workers, the policy wonks, the lobbyists, the researchers, the advocates, the nonprofit execs, the journalists, the community organizers, the philanthropists, and the politicians. All of those kinds of people are required to push things forward. I see no evidence, based on years working in the field, that one is any more important than the other.
Notice that what most of those people are doing is working for change, generally in a low-key way. Not shouting at people online (or IRL) and calling everyone who isn’t 110% in agreement with them a Nazi/Bigot/Privileged Agent of the Patriarchy/Other insults.
Well, yeah. I was responding specifically to the idea of people not getting married until gay marriage is legalized.
Most of the people I know from the far-left are activists. Like, actually doing shit activists. Part of being an activist is being vocal about it.
So you don’t really know, with any given person, what their real motive is, unless you get to know them.
Shouting people down is generally not conducive to any kind of meaningful change. I am against that sort of thing, too.
Your professional experience is the press right?
So, in your professional experience, how often do things happen that no one knows or cares about?
Why do you cover things in the press, if things will get done behind the scenes that no one knows about.
The pollies will not “just got on with it” unless they think that there is public support for it. How would they find out that there is public support for it, if no one talks about being supportive?
Now, you did not say that working behind the scenes solves everything, but you did say that I’d be astounded by how much gets done behind the scenes. Surprisingly often is not astounding, and I contest the “surprisingly often” as well. Now, Australia may be different than the US in that regard, but the stuff that gets accomplished behind the scenes around here are rarely things that are for positive social change. It is depressingly rare that some positive social change comes from the government without quite a bit of overwhelming public support.
Sometimes it takes noisy people to get “the pollies” off the dime. Too often they just don’t care unless it threatens their re-election chances.
Noise can be a useful tool.
On the other hand, don’t tell us how to deal with Nazis over here. If they are wearing their little “Hitler Jugend” bullshit and waving Nazi flags and yapping about “Da Joos”, then they ARE nazi bigots and we will deal with them as WE see fit… ridicule, noise, and hopefully shitloads of police.
If we pretend that the KKK and Nazis don’t exist, that doesn’t make them go away. Those people simply think “See? There are no consequences to joining us. No one is going to protest us because most of them agree with us.”