• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About s0crates

  • Rank
    The Run Stopper
  • Birthday 09/30/1981

Contact Methods

  • Redskins Fan Since
    Since 1986
  • Favorite Redskin
    Darrell Green
  • Location
  1. No, not exactly. I have a fear that people will do that, which is why I do my best to adhere to the principles designed to prevent it.
  2. I don't doubt some people deserve to die, as for example people selling young girls into sex slavery, but I will insist nobody deserves to die because of what he thinks, even if what he thinks is stupid. I do agree with you in the sense that our society would be better off if these people weren't so stupid, I just think there are better solutions to that problem than genocide.
  3. Maybe you'll exterminate me too?
  4. I imagine you're quite right on this point, but I'm looking at a bigger picture. There's a culture war happening, which is why we spent all week arguing about some mid-level IT guy getting fired for an email. The fringes of the culture war are radicalized. This march today is evidence of that, as were the Berkeley antifa riots. Most of us aren't them, and those of us who aren't them need to do a better job of communicating before they get out of control. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it doesn't look good to me.
  5. Quite a few in this thread have openly advocated exterminating these poor ignorant slobs, do you not think that's a radical solution to the problem? Suppose that was the reaction to an antifa rally with communist flags if it helps.
  6. This is not good. There are a lot of radicals on both sides of the aisle ready for violence. Hopefully things don't escalate too much and nobody gets hurt out there. I'm still holding out hope that the more sane among us can resolve our political disputes with words.
  7. A lot has changed since the introduction of the birth control pill. A quick Google search brings up an article titled "Women without kids up 80 percent from 30 years ago" and many more like it. We could debate whether or not the trend of fewer women having children is likely to result in the utopia radical feminists imagine, but for now I'll just note the fact that fewer women are having children is consistent with my hypothesis that motherhood is one of the factors influencing the percentage of women dentists. Please note I'm not denying that sociocultural factors also contribute. You seem concerned to demonstrate that fact to me, but as I've already said, I think the correct answer to the "nature or nurture" question is "both." Or do you mean to tell me that biology is not a factor at all?
  8. I liked "screed" better than "manifesto."
  9. We used to burn them at the stake, but people won't let us do that anymore.
  10. My first guess is motherhood might be a factor for women, and yes that has a "biologically driven emotional component." For men, "the anti-diversity screed" mentions seeking status for reproductive purposes. I don't know about that, but it could be a factor. I'll give you that these aren't the only factors, and I'm sure we could do more to mentor some of those hygienists who could have been dentists. I'd just caution you not to assume all those full-time mom, part-time hygienists would be happier if they had chosen otherwise. The key to all this is to give everybody as much opportunity as possible and allow each individual to make his or her own choices. If you do that there will be some great stay at home dads, some outstanding women carpenters, probably more women in IT and dentistry, etc., I just wouldn't expect equal numbers of men and women to make those choices, because men and women are different, and I don't think it's sexist to say so.
  11. If you're going to take the IT jobs from the men, then you're going to have to give them some of the dental hygeine jobs, otherwise you're just going to have a lot of unemployed men stacking up. I'm sure men and women will both be much happier in their new careers when you guys are done with the social engineering.
  12. I tend to keep my hot takes away from company email too, although maybe we would be better off if people like us didn't sense that it would be imprudent to tell our colleagues what we think.
  13. Apparently white male privilege doesn't protect you from getting fired for expressing opinions contrary to SJW groupthink.
  14. Peter Singer thinks Google is in the wrong here, but what does he know about ethics anyway? He's probably an alt-right misogynist. http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750 Why Google was wrong: Did James Damore really deserve to be fired for what he wrote? PETER SINGER AUG 10, 2017 8:56 AM James Damore, a software engineer at Google, wrote a memo in which he argued that there are differences between men and women that may explain, in part, why there are fewer women than men in his field of work. For this, Google fired him. Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, sent Google employees a memo saying that “much of what was in that memo is fair to debate,” but that portions of it cross a line by advancing “harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Pichai did not specify which sections of the memo discussed issues that are fair to debate, and which portions cross the line. That would have been difficult to do, because the entire memo is about whether certain gender stereotypes have a basis in reality. Damore argues that there is evidence to show that women, when compared to men, tend to: -be more interested in people -be less interested in analyzing or constructing systems -have higher anxiety and lower tolerance of stress -have a lower drive for status -be more interested in balancing life and work Damore is careful to point out that the evidence for these claims does not show that all women have these characteristics to a higher degree than men. He says that many of these differences are small, that there is significant overlap between men and women, and that “you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.” He shows this with a graph, too. He says that to reduce people to their group identity is bad. There is scientific research supporting the views Damore expresses. There are also grounds for questioning some of this research. In assessing Google’s action in firing Damore, it isn’t necessary to decide which side is right, but only whether Damore’s view is one that a Google employee should be permitted to express. I think it is. First, as I’ve said, it is not some twisted, crazy view. There are serious articles, published in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals, supporting it. Second, it addresses an important issue. Google is rightly troubled by the fact that its workforce is largely male. Sexism in many areas of employment is well-documented. Employers should be alert to the possibility that they are discriminating against women, and should take steps to prevent such discrimination. Some orchestras now conduct blind auditions — the musician plays from behind a screen, so that those making the appointment do not know if they are listening to a man or a woman. That has led to a dramatic increase in the number of women in orchestras. More businesses should look at the possibilities of similarly blinding themselves, when hiring, to the gender of applicants. But once such anti-discrimination measures have been taken, to the greatest extent feasible, does the fact that a workforce in a particular industry is predominantly male prove that there has been discrimination? Not if the kind of work on offer is likely to be attractive to more men than to women. . . .
  15. Consider this data on occupations by gender: Percent of total employed Sex Occupation Name Women Men Dental hygienists 98% 2% Occupational therapist 92% 8% Licensed practical and vocational nurses 92% 8% Registered Nurses 91% 9% Healthcare social workers 81% 19% Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social Workers 81% 19% Elementary school teachers, except special ed 80% 20% Meeting, convention, and event planners 77% 23% Physical therapists 72% 28% Mental health counselors 71% 29% Physical therapists assistants 70% 30% Interpreters and translators 68% 32% Physician Assistants 67% 33% Accountants and auditors 60% 40% Market research analysts and marketing specialists 57% 43% Medical scientists, except epidemiologists 53% 47% Postsecondary teachers 48% 52% Database Administrators 39% 61% Physicians and surgeons 36% 64% Personal Financial Advisors 31% 69% Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing 27% 73% Cargo and Freight Agents 26% 74% Software Developers, Systems Software 22% 78% Cost estimators 11% 89% Heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers 5% 95% Heating, Air conditioning and refrigeration mechanics and installers 1% 99% Carpenters 1% 99% Brickmasons and blockmasons 0% 100% Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers 0% 100% Now here are my questions, especially for the SJW types: 1. How do you explain the data? Why are so many women working in education and healthcare compared to men? Why are so few women working in HVAC and IT compared to men? Is there some conspiracy by males to keep women out of those cushy HVAC jobs? Is there a corresponding conspiracy among females to keep men out of nursing jobs? Could it be that men and women are different? If so, why? Are the differences socially constructed by the sexist patriarchy? Do they have a biological basis? Maybe some of both? Neither? 2. Do you think we should make changes in an effort to alter the data? If so, what results would you like to see, and what changes do you propose? Would you like to see a 50-50 distribution of men and women among dental hygienists and HVAC pros? How are we going to achieve that? Affirmative action? Social engineering? Maybe we could implement quotas to ensure brickmasons are preferentially hiring women and hospitals are preferentially hiring male nurses? Maybe we should start with the children. We could start having girls only shop classes and boys only home economics classes, like the 1950s, but with the roles reversed? What could go wrong? Of course I jest, but I would like to know the answers to 1 & 2 if you think you have them.