АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
But it's offensive! OMGLOLWTFBBQ
-
When instead he might want to start with his own daughters. Plus, prepare to show them not only that engineering, computering and other "typically boys'" stuff is cool (as are dolls if they want them),
And vice versa. Tried to do that with my kids. They (mostly) chose traditional-gender interests, anyway.
-
Because they seem to be far more aware of their environment than the SJWs from their elvish realm.
-
"It" is also a valid neuter singular third-person pronoun. It's bad enough that in English "you" is ambiguous as to number (Are "you" an individual or a group?); I refuse to extend that ambiguity to "they," even if Oxford Dictionaries says it's acceptable.
Here, here!
-
-
Here's the thing. There are "geek" and "nerd" stereotypes with which many those in IT are labeled: you know, smelly fat neckbearded insecure dudes living in their moms' basements, unable to speak aloud coherently and losing their shit when approached by anyone remotely attractive.
There are dudes who have all these traits, and there are dudes or gals having some of them, and let me tell you that unless they are trained to not give a shit, they have a very hard time in life, starting from schools where they are extensively bullied and later in life being intensely ridiculed. By the very society that is oh so inclusive and pro-diversity.
Even the terms "geek" and "nerd" are actually derogatory. The Zed Shaw mentioned to a woman in a twitter conversation, that for him, being called "a nerd" is the same as her being called "a cunt". Now, where is the movement to ban these words in favour of "IT enthusiast" or "hacker"? It's fucking the same thing.
The so-called pro-equality hypocrites should shut the fuck up.
-
Even the terms "geek" and "nerd" are actually derogatory.
On piece of useless trivia I've picked up over the years is that "geek" used to be a carny term for a specialist eater of disgusting things.
Filed under: could also mean "freak"
-
Is that anything like reclaiming 'porchmonkey' as in Clerks 2?
-
Misandry thread drinking game:
- Anytime someone mentions a "straw man", you take a shot
- Wake up next Tuesday
-
for him, being called "a nerd" is the same as her being called "a cunt".
I think he's an idiot.
I wear my nerd badge with pride.
-
I wear my nerd badge with pride.
I prefer geek, but only due to my own not generally accepted definition.
-
That's nothing to be proud about.
Real pride is about what one does more than about what one is.
-
-
Do we really need to restart the debate about people choosing to take offence? Because ffs, taking offense for being called "he" instead of "she", or taking offense for being called a "nerd" have uhh, how to say, similarities?
-
Let's get Back On Topic.
Maybe @Buddy can help us figure out whether it would be good or bad if more trans-women joined IT? IIRC, there was one user back on CS who claimed to be just such a person.
My opinion: [spoiler]If they're good at their jobs and like them / can make a living at it, then it's a good thing for them and the rest of us. Just like any other person.[/spoiler]
-
Ok. I'm going to hit some topics in the econ flame war (because the other one is like arguing with a member of PETA ;) ) and then say so long to my "squirrel" moment:
since true free market economies exist only in the land of rainbow-belching unicorns, dancing on spherical cows in a perfect vacuum.
Point granted.we will always be faced with limited resources meaning that late-comers will automatically be denied market entry.
- Resources historically have been limited in strict short term temporal scopes. On the full historical scale, we have more resources per capita now, than ever before.
- I grew up next-to-dirt-poor ( Actually had a floor ). I now own two cars, more tech than I can shake a stick at, a house, and have a nice retirement nest-egg. Where was my "denial of market entry"? Being that poor does, in fact, make me at "late-comer".
And even so, the imperfection of our free markets have lifted more people out of horrible poverty and benefited mankind more than anything else.
True. And never claimed otherwise
all property is, in the first instance, acquired purely by right of conquest,
Since, of course, there is no difference between wresting it from nature and wresting it from the possession of another person⸮@M_Adams, @boomzilla, I don't get why this is so hard for you to understand:
There exist human beings who own no capital assets.
All existing capital assets are already owned.
Assets cannot be created out of nothing.=> there are people who are unable to enter the market without receiving assets that were previously owned by other people
See Above.talking about a free market.
Which I claim, based on historical evidence,
Um..... (filed under: you doubled up and managed to stick your dick in your own ear! How Graceful ): @GOG said:since true free market economies exist only in the land of rainbow-belching unicorns, dancing on spherical cows in a perfect vacuum.
But of course, Sir. Should I make the sheeps sing "Beasts of England" now?
TDEMSYR - Wow, Animal Farm? Really? Have you in fact read it? "All Animals are Equal, but Some are more Equal than Others" is not capitalism. BTW the sheeple already sing "I want my MTV..."dhromed said:
I wear my nerd badge with pride.I prefer geek, but only due to my own not generally accepted definition.
I prefer nerd myself, however having eaten a black widow spider on a bet (200 dollars) during basic training... I guess I'm just a traditional carny geek
-
Oooh, and I thought the flames had died!
Resources historically have been limited in strict short term temporal scopes. On the full historical scale, we have more resources per capita now, than ever before.
If we assume that we can keep opening up closed systems indefinitely, then all bets are off. However, given that the Universe itself is finite (to say nothing of Earth), it is much more likely that we will hit a barrier sooner or later. On a national level we're pretty much dealing with closed systems already and on an international level we're getting there quickly. After that, the situation pretty much depends on the particular market/resource we're looking at. In other words: we have access to more resources in a bigger system. Comparing like with like, you'll typically find that there are fewer freely available resources in any particular locale with a long history than there were in the past.
I grew up next-to-dirt-poor ( Actually had a floor ). I now own two cars, more tech than I can shake a stick at, a house, and have a nice retirement nest-egg. Where was my "denial of market entry"? Being that poor does, in fact, make me at "late-comer".
It would, if we were talking about personal advancement and not entry into a specific, mature (= locked-down) market. Furthermore, since free markets are the subject, we're also talking about a market where there are no competition laws and therefore no legal barrier to monopolies, cartels and anti-competitive practices in general.
Since, of course, there is no difference between wresting it from nature and wresting it from the possession of another person
On a fundamental level there is no difference, since in "wresting it from nature" also means wresting it from the possession of any one else, who might have done so afterwards. The deeper point is that there is no particular reason why a particular thing should be yours, just because you saw it first.The fact that you have turned a plot of land, say, to productive use can well be used to support the assertion that you are entitled to all fruits of that labour - but much less so a claim of a right to the land itself.
-
IIRC, there was one user back on CS who claimed to be just such a person.
[spoiler]@morbiuswilters where be ye?
[/spoiler]
@M_Adams said:(filed under: you doubled up and managed to stick your dick in your own ear! How Graceful ):
[spoiler]That goes at the end fool.[/spoiler]
-
TDEMSYR - Wow, Animal Farm? Really? Have you in fact read it? "All Animals are Equal, but Some are more Equal than Others" is not capitalism. BTW the sheeple already sing "I want my MTV..."
Excellent. You got the reference. Now I will patiently wait for you to understand it too.
Hint: An unpleasant reality does not become the opposite just because you claim so. Or have the sheep sing it.
-
[spoiler]And then everyone stops. Or goes to shower/take a dump. Finally.[/spoiler]
-
I grew up next-to-dirt-poor ( Actually had a floor ). I now own two cars, more tech than I can shake a stick at, a house, and have a nice retirement nest-egg. Where was my "denial of market entry"? Being that poor does, in fact, make me at "late-comer".
You do realize you could have retired 20-30 years sooner if you were an oil tycoon, right? Or been idle rich your whole life, if your great grand parents had been railroad tycoons. It's too late for that. And the best you managed (while commendable) is slightly above average for your cohort.
That is where there is "denial of market entry".
-
-
And now, just to piss people who hate anything remixed off:
Psy Trance. 1200 Micrograms - Acid for Nothing – 08:01
— Glen Miller
-
Maybe @Buddy can help us figure out whether it would be good or bad if more trans-women joined IT? IIRC, there was one user back on CS who claimed to be just such a person.
This one.He's a crazy fool, actually.
-
https://www.google.pl/search?q=site%3Athedailywtf.com+lucidfox
This one.He's a crazy fool, actually.
No, different user who actually posted to the forum.
-
Furthermore, since free markets are the subject, we're also talking about a market where there are no competition laws and therefore no legal barrier to monopolies, cartels and anti-competitive practices in general.
We have all of those things now, in some cases created by government, so that argument doesn't really work.
-
that argument doesn't really work.
Unless we are arguing that real world markets are not free.
Filed under: and that it's a good thing
-
Unless we are arguing that real world markets are not free.
It depends on the depths of pedantic dickweedery to which we aspire.
Filed Under: Sophistry is as sophistry does
-
It depends on the depths of pedantic dickweedery to which we aspire.
We can go either way, but in that case we must decide whether we're talking "free" or "mostly free" or "kinda free". Which do you prefer?
-
We can go either way, but in that case we must decide whether we're talking "free" or "mostly free" or "kinda free". Which do you prefer?
Define prefer.
-
Would you rather talk about free markets (no government intervention whatsoever), mostly free markets (little-to-moderate government intervention) or kinda free markets (much government intervention)? Choose one and we can define what exactly we mean by it, so there is no misunderstanding.
-
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you missed my point entirely. Let's try it using an example from another field that won't conflict with your religious doctrines. A few months ago, there was a debate here about legalizing drugs. Some guy whose handle I don't remember posted that he's OK with legalization as long as meth wasn't included. The reason given was that he knew personally meth users who ruined their lives and the lives of others. My response was that it's a good thing they're in jail then where they can't hurt anyone else. To which he responded that they were not only not in jail but that they lived down the street.
The point? You can't argue that we can't do X because Y would result if Y is already the case. You can argue that we can't do X because that would lead to more of Y, but then you have to prove that.
-
I see the point you are making, in general, but not how it applies to our current conversation. Could you please explain it in context?
-
Wait, does that mean that even if we for instance forbid abortion, that will not prevent if from happening but that people will do it illegally instead?!
-
By your thumbnail sketches, I like mostly free markets, erring on the little side of the government intervention spectrum.
Why are we specifying this again?
Oh, right, so we can figure how to keep the XXs out of our bidness.
-
Based on our experience here in Poland: yep.
-
Why are we specifying this again?
To make sure that we understand what the other is saying and don't ascribe to them views they do not in fact hold.
-
Wait, does that mean that even if we for instance forbid abortion, that will not prevent if from happening but that people will do it illegally instead?!
Absolutely, just like other forms of murder. This line of thought suggests a question: Should we just get rid of all laws since people keep breaking them?
-
You're arguing that it's a good thing we don't have a completely free market as then we would have monopolies, cartels, and anti-competitive practices. I was just pointing out that here in the U.S. we don't have a completely free market, but we still have monopolies, cartels and anti-competitive practices. In some cases these are supported by our government. In other cases these are created by our government.
-
Relevant:
@C.S. Lewis said:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-
Ah. I understand now.
My view is that a measure of control exercised over the market (thus making it less free) lessens these negative effects, paradoxically maintaining a greater degree of market freedom than would have emerged from its inevitable consolidation without these control measures exerting a negative feedback.
Much like medicine does not eliminate disease, but surely it's better to have it than not?
-
Much like medicine does not eliminate disease, but surely it's better to have it than not?
Well, using this analogy, the doctors are actively doing things that make us sick. I'm not sure it's a good analogy anyway, as we know that we have less disease with medicine than we would without. We don't know that about monopolies and a completely free market, you're just assuming it would happen.
-
you're just assuming it would happen
True, but I don't do it unquestioningly nor without much prior thought. Would you like to walk with me through how I arrive at this conclusion?
-
Yes, because you would be the first person to have ever done this.
Filed under: How's your sarcasm detector working?
-
Absolutely, just like other forms of murder. This line of thought suggests a question: Should we just get rid of all laws since people keep breaking them?
I'm still unsure whether you understood my sarcasm, but I think you did.
The point you make shows that the law is not as objective as one sometimes say: it's based on what is considered wrong or right. In the case of abortion, it's debatable whether it's mass murder or not, though people do agree that mass murder is wrong.
What I mean to say is that by forbidding murder by law, you explicitely say that it's wrong, so people committing murder are aware of that (they're usually — way more often than not — aware that's it's against the law and do it anyway).
-
I take it as a "no". No skin off my nose.
-
Well, it depends on the measure of control, doesn't it? Also, what other effects does the control have?
And, as always, it depends. Industries with natural monopolies typically require something different from other industries. I suspect we can all nearly potentially agree that it's valid for the government to do things like create and enforce anti-fraud statutes.
But if you have an enthusiastic regulator, they'll have problems keeping the law up with actual practices, so I think you end up where you either have a break down in the rule of law or a terribly anachronistic enforcement regime. In the real world, we have a bit of both, of course.
I think that it's easy to see the obvious benefits of regulation, but very difficult to suss out all of the other consequences, which can often be quite significant and long lasting.
I didn't want to quote the whole bit, but you can find the bit quoted below and keep reading:
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/scripts/bart-the-mother
@KENT said:Our top story, the population of parasitic tree lizards has exploded, and local citizens couldn't be happier! It seems the rapacious reptiles have developed a taste for the common pigeon, also known as the 'feathered rat', or the 'gutter bird'. For the first time, citizens need not fear harassment by flocks of chattering disease-bags.
Sadly, winter rarely comes for the progeny of the modern state.
-
I'm still unsure whether you understood my sarcasm, but I think you did.
It was more of a sideways reply aimed at @GOG, I think. Plus, I'm a huge fan of not murdering babies.
-
Ah. I understand now.
My view is that a measure of control exercised over the market (thus making it less free) lessens these negative effects, paradoxically maintaining a greater degree of market freedom than would have emerged from its inevitable consolidation without these control measures exerting a negative feedback.
Much like medicine does not eliminate disease, but surely it's better to have it than not?
The difference here is that medicine is non partial. Medicine cannot (yet) decide, "Oh, it looks like you might have something possibly risky over here. Better stop it now," without consulting you. Government intervention in the market is guided solely by the consciences of those in the government. And, unlike the medicine in your example, governing bodies can certainly decide to take action without the approval of those being governed.
Now, are things better with government intervention than without? In some ways, yes. There are limits on what an employer can ask of you, enforcing a somewhat balanced bargaining situation for employees. There are other examples that I could add, but there have already been 5 additional posts since I started writing this one.
On the other hand, @boomzilla makes a good point. In some ways the government is too involved. At one point I was between jobs and wanted to start a consulting business to help fill the gap. It took a month just to register a simple LLC. That doesn't even include setting up any business accounts, or websites, or anything else. That was just filing to get the business registered with the state and feds. Does anyone really believe that it should take that long just to register a business? And yes, that was just filing all the paperwork, and making the necessary publications (yeah, I had to publish a notice in the paper before my filing was legal!).
-
I think that it's easy to see the obvious benefits of regulation, but very difficult to suss out all of the other consequences, which can often be quite significant and long lasting.
I think we can agree this is an inevitable consequence of people being very imaginative and pulling each in their own direction. If we were one big happy family, we wouldn't need laws or government.
My view is actually pretty simple: our aim should be to ensure that no particular person or group should have considerably greater power than any other person or group. Everyone should have someone they have to take into account. Someone to keep them in check, as it were.
Consider the US Government, with its separation of powers and system of checks and balances. Even if these falter, there is always the Constitution as a second line of defence. Lastly, there is the American people, from whom all this power arises. Potentially, the voting population could implement any kind of change imaginable, but it would be hard to get them to agree on exactly what. I believe the entire system is pretty robust, no?
