Utopia Talk / Politics / Is it worsening the divide, seb?

Delude Member	Fri Aug 24 12:42:49 Lisa Kimmel is president and CEO of Edelman Canada. A few weeks ago, a good friend of mine – who happens to be a male executive – confided in me that he had been accused of sexual misconduct at a recent company function. “I didn’t do this,” he implored, “but I know my career and reputation are over.” The sheer panic in his voice was terrifying. The allegations against him were subsequently proved to be false. I was rocked by this news (both the initial allegations, and their resulting dismissal), not only as his friend, but as a female executive who has commented on the business implications swirling around even the threat of such accusations. There’s no question that my view of the #MeToo movement has evolved since I wrote about the issue in January. I have had the opportunity to talk about my thoughts at the recent Women’s Forum Canada debate about whether the movement will inevitably help unify men and women in creating better workplaces. While my position on the matter may not be the popular one, I’m steadfast in my evolving belief that #MeToo is worsening the divide between men and women, instead of bridging the gap towards meaningful change. To be clear: I’m supportive of #MeToo so long as justice is pursued through due process; but as I’ve witnessed first-hand, that’s not always what’s happening. If we don’t correct the current course, I firmly believe the movement will ultimately hurt – not help – women in the long run. Consider the following: The “Mike Pence rule” is alive and well. The Mike Pence rule refers to something the now-Vice-President of the United States said back in 2002. He reportedly does not eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is being served, unless his wife is present. I’ve heard anecdotally from many male executives that this rule is smart – even “brilliant” in some cases – because retreating from being alone with female co-workers reduces their risk profile to zero. This sentiment was also reflected in a LeanIn.org study that found that male managers are three times as likely to say they are uncomfortable mentoring women and twice as uncomfortable working alone with a woman. The personal and professional implications of such a rule for women are many. Without due process, everyone loses: There is a difference between the likely bad judgment of the Tom Brokaw, Ryan Lizza and Glen Thrushes of the world, and the likes of Harvey Weinstein, an alleged rapist and serial predator whose actions were an open secret in Hollywood. Yet in an era of trial by Twitter, the #MeToo movement immediately paints everyone with the same brush. Given the systemic challenges and barriers that have been faced by women for generations, it’s easy to dismiss the concerns of men in the era of #MeToo. But the reality is, there is a spectrum of behaviours and actions, and we simply can’t ignore the need for due process. Men who are accused of misconduct must be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Failure to do so will only hurt women in the long run, as men will increasingly retrench from supporting and advocating for us. Ultimately, we need to protect the right to due process for anyone accused of sexual harassment. We can’t pursue justice through unjust means. Feminism is not gender tribalism. We need for both genders to come together to engage in a conversation around what is the new normal and figure out actionable steps to take for true gender equality to exist in society, or else further gender polarization – and its resulting consequences – will ensue. http://www...-divide-between-men-and-women/
Sam Adams Member	Fri Aug 24 12:57:46 In a world where sebs have decided that it is not ok to discriminate against anyone except straight white men... straight white men are obviously the safest people to hire.
murder Member	Fri Aug 24 13:57:16 I never cease to be amused by this. #MeToo is a threat because a few innocent men's lives may possibly be ruined as a result of false allegations. That's nice. Unfortunately this sensitivity towards those few innocent men completely ignores the ruined lives of all the women that are and have been raped, assaulted, coerced, harassed, denied jobs/promotions, run out of companies, now and in the past. So as usual, the concerns of men outweigh the victimization of women. Men have been misbehaving forever, and it was ignored or worse, but the minute that women start fighting back, now we need to be careful to make sure that men are adequately protected. These "innocent" men may not have committed the acts that they are accused of, but it's safe to say that they have witnessed women being harassed and kept quiet about it. So if a few "innocent" men get taken down in the process ... it's a tolerable price to pay for progress. Oh and these women that have been and continue to be raped, assaulted, coerced, harassed, denied jobs/promotions, run out of companies ... those are your wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and girlfriends. I only mention that on the off chance that even the aggrieved alt-right white male skirt wearing men's rights crowd, care about the women in their lives too. But who am I kidding. You end up like that because you don't.
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 24 14:02:32 Kill yourself, cuck
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Fri Aug 24 14:14:49 http://www...llegations-20180823-story.html
kargen Member	Fri Aug 24 14:29:49 murder yes the PoundMeToo movement is being threatened by the false allegations. The more times women make these false claims the easier it becomes to dismiss real claims as false. It is the wives daughters mothers sisters and girlfriends that should be most pissed about those who make false allegations. It undermines their real concerns. You want to help the women whos lives have been ruined go after the ones that ruined those lives. Destroying the lives of the innocent is not progress in any sense of the word.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Aug 24 14:45:45 Murder, a large percentage of identity politics claims in the workplace are fake. You know this.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 24 16:52:41 >>So if a few "innocent" men get taken down in the process ... it's a tolerable price to pay for progress.<< As long as I am not one of them, sure. I am fine if you are one of those "innocent" men. If the cost is possible ruin, that changes the game quite a bit. People are not stupid, specially not people with a lot to loose. Why bet it all if you risk ruin?
hood Member	Fri Aug 24 17:02:38 "These "innocent" men may not have committed the acts that they are accused of, but it's safe to say that they have witnessed women being harassed and kept quiet about it." No, it isn't fucking safe to say they have witnessed women being harassed (to the level of #metoo) and just kept silent. Beyond that, this attitude is almost as patronizing as one can get. It is extremely fucking sexist to have the attitude that men deserve to be caught up in false allegations simply because you assume they didn't protect the poor, meek women in their lives - as if those women didn't have a spine of their own. You are remarkably sexist, murder. Women are not objects for you to protect and bolster, they are people of their own. They are individuals who can take care of themselves. Maybe if you let women defend themselves instead of assuming they cannot adequately function without your intervention, we wouldn't have as many gendered problems. And yes, your attitude is equal and opposite in measure of danger as the "women are worthless" attitudes.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 24 17:03:06 Anyway I for one enjoy murders unapologetic white knighting, it's old school and dumb down. He is to white knighting what young earth creationist are to creationism. Seb on the other hand, he is the intelligent design of white knighting. More sophisticated, but once you get passed the more sciency word salads, you realize, mother fucker.. this is creationism..
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 24 17:09:56 >>So if a few "innocent" men get taken down in the process ... it's a tolerable price to pay for progress.<< Imagine the countless times in history words similar to this have been uttered, right before a bunch of people are shot in the head. Viva la revolución!
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 24 17:23:05 murder has a daughter and redirects his classic extremism to misandry. How quaint.
smart dude Member	Fri Aug 24 17:35:21 Meh, murder makes a good point imo.
smart dude Member	Fri Aug 24 17:36:45 It's called collateral damage. Almost every good cause has involved it. Nobody likes it. Get over it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 24 17:45:15 "murder has a daughter and redirects his classic extremism to misandry. How quaint." I can relate. I had a son, and woke™ up a Men's Right activist. I hate women now.
hood Member	Fri Aug 24 19:34:31 "It's called collateral damage." Collateral damage is accidental. This topic is about willful, wrongful accusations and the complete lack of power to do anything about it.
delude Member	Fri Aug 24 19:47:33 Seb, your thoughts? Murder even? The case seems like a familiar story turned on its head: Avital Ronell, a world-renowned female professor of German and Comparative Literature at New York University, was found responsible for sexually harassing a male former graduate student, Nimrod Reitman. An 11-month Title IX investigation found Professor Ronell, described by a colleague as “one of the very few philosopher-stars of this world,” responsible for sexual harassment, both physical and verbal, to the extent that her behavior was “sufficiently pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of Mr. Reitman’s learning environment.” The university has suspended Professor Ronell for the coming academic year. In the Title IX final report, excerpts of which were obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Reitman said that she had sexually harassed him for three years, and shared dozens of emails in which she referred to him as “my most adored one,” “Sweet cuddly Baby,” “cock-er spaniel,” and “my astounding and beautiful Nimrod.” Coming in the middle of the #MeToo movement’s reckoning over sexual misconduct, it raised a challenge for feminists — how to respond when one of their own behaved badly. And the response has roiled a corner of academia. Soon after the university made its final, confidential determination this spring, a group of scholars from around the world, including prominent feminists, sent a letter to N.Y.U. in defense of Professor Ronell. Judith Butler, the author of the book “Gender Trouble” and one of the most influential feminist scholars today, was first on the list. “Although we have no access to the confidential dossier, we have all worked for many years in close proximity to Professor Ronell,” the professors wrote in a draft letter posted on a philosophy blog in June. “We have all seen her relationship with students, and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her.” Critics saw the letter, with its focus on the potential damage to Professor Ronell’s reputation and the force of her personality, as echoing past defenses of powerful men. “We testify to the grace, the keen wit, and the intellectual commitment of Professor Ronell and ask that she be accorded the dignity rightly deserved by someone of her international standing and reputation,” the professors wrote. Mr. Reitman, who is now 34 and is a visiting fellow at Harvard, says that Professor Ronell kissed and touched him repeatedly, slept in his bed with him, required him to lie in her bed, held his hand, texted, emailed and called him constantly, and refused to work with him if he did not reciprocate. Mr. Reitman is gay and is now married to a man; Professor Ronell is a lesbian. Professor Ronell, 66, denied any harassment. “Our communications — which Reitman now claims constituted sexual harassment — were between two adults, a gay man and a queer woman, who share an Israeli heritage, as well as a penchant for florid and campy communications arising from our common academic backgrounds and sensibilities,” she wrote in a statement to The New York Times. “These communications were repeatedly invited, responded to and encouraged by him over a period of three years.” Two years after graduating from N.Y.U. with a Ph.D., Mr. Reitman filed a Title IX complaint against his former adviser, alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, stalking and retaliation. In May, the university found Professor Ronell responsible for sexual harassment and cleared her of the other allegations. Mr. Reitman’s lawyer, Donald Kravet, said he and his client have drafted a lawsuit against N.Y.U. and Professor Ronell and are now considering their options. Both Mr. Reitman and Professor Ronell’s descriptions of their experiences echo other #MeToo stories: In Mr. Reitman’s recollection, he was afraid of his professor and the power she wielded over him, and often went along with behavior that left him feeling violated. Professor Ronell said that Mr. Reitman desperately sought her attention and guidance in interviews she submitted to the Title IX office at N.Y.U., which The New York Times obtained. The problems began, according to Mr. Reitman, in the spring of 2012, before he officially started school. Professor Ronell invited him to stay with her in Paris for a few days. The day he arrived, she asked him to read poetry to her in her bedroom while she took an afternoon nap, he said. “That was already a red flag to me,” said Mr. Reitman. “But I also thought, O.K., you’re here. Better not make a scene.” Then, he said, she pulled him into her bed. “She put my hands onto her breasts, and was pressing herself — her buttocks — onto my crotch,” he said. “She was kissing me, kissing my hands, kissing my torso.” That evening, a similar scene played out again, he said. He confronted her the next morning, he said. “I said, look, what happened yesterday was not O.K. You’re my adviser,” he recalled in an interview. When he got to New York, the behavior continued, he said, when after Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, Professor Ronell showed up at his apartment because her power had gone out. He said that, despite his objections, she convinced him that they could both sleep in his bed together. Once there, she groped and kissed him each night for nearly a week, he said. “Professor Ronell denies all allegations of sexual contact in their entirety,” Mary Dorman, Professor Ronell’s lawyer, wrote in a submission to the Title IX office. Professor Ronell said she only stayed for two nights after the hurricane, at Mr. Reitman’s invitation. The Title IX report concluded that there was not enough evidence to find Professor Ronell responsible for sexual assault, partly because no one else observed the interactions in his apartment or her room in Paris. In the semesters that followed, Mr. Reitman said he was expected to work with Professor Ronell, often at her apartment, during lengthy work sessions nearly every weekend. Professor Ronell frequently detailed her affection and longing for him, according to emails from her that Mr. Reitman provided to The New York Times. “I woke up with a slight fever and sore throat,” she wrote in an email on June 16, 2012, after the Paris trip. “I will try very hard not to kiss you — until the throat situation receives security clearance. This is not an easy deferral!” In July, she wrote a short email to him: “time for your midday kiss. my image during meditation: we’re on the sofa, your head on my lap, stroking you [sic] forehead, playing softly with yr hair, soothing you, headache gone. Yes?” In a submission to the Title IX office, Professor Ronell said she had no idea Mr. Reitman was so uncomfortable until she read the investigators’ report. Mr. Reitman also said that Professor Ronell retaliated against him for complaining to her about her behavior, in part by sending pro forma recommendations on his behalf, thwarting his job prospects. But the Title IX report found that her recommendation letters “were comparable to those for other former students” and he did secure two postgraduate fellowships. Professor Ronell and some who are backing her have tried to discredit her accuser in familiar ways, asking why he took so long to report, and why he seemed so intimate with Professor Ronell if he was, in fact, miserable. Maybe, Professor Ronell suggested, he was frustrated because he just wasn’t smart enough. “His main dilemma was the incoherency in his writing, and lack of a recognizable argument,” Professor Ronell said in a January 2018 interview submitted to the Title IX office. Diane Davis, chair of the department of rhetoric at the University of Texas-Austin, who also signed the letter to the university supporting Professor Ronell, said she and her colleagues were particularly disturbed that, as they saw it, Mr. Reitman was using Title IX, a feminist tool, to take down a feminist. “I am of course very supportive of what Title IX and the #MeToo movement are trying to do, of their efforts to confront and to prevent abuses, for which they also seek some sort of justice,” Professor Davis wrote in an email. “But it’s for that very reason that it’s so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of us believe is happening in this case.” Title IX was intended to address a long history of sexual harassment and assault of women at school, according to Dana Bolger, a co-founder of Know Your IX, a national advocacy group that teaches students about their Title IX rights. “I would say that the vast majority of Title IX cases are protecting male victims from male perpetrators, or female victims from male perpetrators,” Ms. Bolger said. In addition to the suspension, which the university never publicly announced, N.Y.U. is investigating further claims of retaliation related to the professors’ letter. John Beckman, a spokesman for the university, wrote in a statement to The Times that N.Y.U. was “sympathetic” to what Mr. Reitman has been through. But, Mr. Beckman added, “given the promptness, seriousness and thoroughness with which we responded to his charges, we do not believe that his filing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the university would be warranted or just.” Both Professor Ronell and Mr. Reitman feel they have been miscast in this #MeToo story. Mr. Reitman said he never intended to become any kind of public figure in a national conversation about gender, and that he started the process before the movement took off. “It didn’t come from #MeToo,” he said. In March 2018, Professor Ronell pointedly complained that Mr. Reitman had a penchant for “comparing me to the most egregious examples of predatory behaviors ascribable to Hollywood moguls who habitually go after starlets.” http://www...ment-nyu-female-professor.html
Forwyn Member	Fri Aug 24 20:40:00 "and some of us know the individual who has waged this malicious campaign against her." Blaming the victim, nice
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 24 20:54:03 "Destroying the lives of the innocent is not progress in any sense of the word." +1. The idea that it's okay for the innocent to be sacrificed for a larger cause is so disturbing that I took murder's post as a big troll. .. "But it’s for that very reason that it’s so disappointing when this incredible energy for justice is twisted and turned against itself, which is what many of us believe is happening in this case." Have to laugh at the slave morality here: justice is only agreeable to these particular academics if the punished is their intended enemy — they themselves were meant to be immune. Too bad they couldn't get the language of slave morality into Title IX. Instead the law protects students from all educator-predators, regardless of sex.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 25 00:42:29 Murder Yah. A tired old argument that has been used forever in crimes against women. Everyone else What innocents being sacrificed? Due process is followed and recourse is available in courts of law. And yah. Title X was created primarily to penalize predatorial male behaviour. But just like there are female murderers, there are also female predators. At something like a 1:20 ratio.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 25 04:29:24 "What innocents being sacrificed?" In this specific case the response was to an attitude expressed.
jergul large member	Sat Aug 25 10:26:57 Fair enough, though I read murder differently. To me, his point was that specific legislation is required to regulate a whole slew of problems. Though of course it can have unintended conscequences. See war on drugs for truly horrid stories dancing around that theme.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 11:34:36 Murder beat me too it. Oh noes, men might not feel safe in a work environment because women might tell lies about them. Unlike women, who absolutely never suffer from men suggesting they slept with the boss to get promoted. Or worry about whether building workplace relations might lead to confusion about sexual advances which when refused lead to being frozen out. Oh my gosh - straight white men now need to navigate the workplace the way everyone else does. The horror! The horror!
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 11:35:51 Delude: Sounds like it's worth being followed up on.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 25 11:49:32 Jergul >>See war on drugs for truly horrid stories dancing around that theme.<< As you already know, I am no fan of any war on any drugs. Ok maybe meth, but the stereotypical face of meth is a white redneck in a trailer lab. Going to war by definition involves implicitly accepting that many innocent people will perish. Speaking of unintended consequences, a higher level of anxiety among men around women in the wake of metoo, is not a good thing, for women either as the article describes. seb Look past your rage against the men. ”Consider the following: The “Mike Pence rule” is alive and well. The Mike Pence rule refers to something the now-Vice-President of the United States said back in 2002. He reportedly does not eat alone with a woman or attend an event where alcohol is being served, unless his wife is present. I’ve heard anecdotally from many male executives that this rule is smart – even “brilliant” in some cases – because retreating from being alone with female co-workers reduces their risk profile to zero. This sentiment was also reflected in a LeanIn.org study that found that male managers are three times as likely to say they are uncomfortable mentoring women and twice as uncomfortable working alone with a woman. The personal and professional implications of such a rule for women are many.” ”straight white men” Though I am glad we agree none of this applies to me. I would add, straight white *liberal/leftist* men predominatly, as metoo showed.
obaminated Member	Sat Aug 25 12:19:55 "#MeToo is a threat because a few innocent men's lives may possibly be ruined as a result of false allegations. " ah, the good lil nazi pops up again.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 12:23:59 "Oh noes, men might not feel safe in a work environment because women might tell lies about them. Unlike women, who absolutely never suffer from men suggesting they slept with the boss to get promoted." So you're comparing "oh noes, she's a slut!" which, per your words (and generally accepted knowledge) doesn't lead to any real retaliation. Sure, being frozen out (which only matters at the executive level, which is a small % of employees) means you lose advancement opportunities, but you don't lose anything you currently have. Compare that to accusations of sexual harassment, which can very quickly lead to not loss of future opportunities but loss of current job, current income, future employment in general.... Yeah I'd much rather be accused of attempting to sleep my way up the ladder vs. harassing my way out of a job. "Oh my gosh - straight white men now need to navigate the workplace the way everyone else does." Again, see above for extreme difference of reaction and consequences of the aforementioned accusations. It's boredline acceptable for women to "use their assets" (in that they won't receive punishment with any teeth). If I tried to sleep with my female boss for a promotion, you can be damn sure the reaction would be different.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 12:25:16 "ah, the good lil nazi pops up again." This isn't murder being a nazi. Nazis thought everyone was guilty. Murder at least accepts innocent people will be swept up in punishment.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 14:01:42 Hood: Sure it does. It leads to systematically undervaluing that individuals work and merit, being passed over for future promotion,and being sidelined. I have seen this happen. And if you haven't it's either because you are too junior or aren't looking. I'm simply not interested in hearing about or talking about the systemic risks of meetoo from people who don't accept these risks already exist ten fold for women. Such people aren't credibly capable of a serious conversation.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 14:03:19 I have known at least two woman whose careers were essentially ended by turning down senior men for affairs. So don't tell me there's no comparable risks. It's a lie.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Aug 25 14:10:26 "I have known at least two woman"' Well hey, with 7 billion people around...
Aeros Member	Sat Aug 25 14:29:18 A truth that people dont want to deal with is while are predisposed to compete via strength, ability, emotional banter and outright fighting, women tend to compete via rumor, reputation destruction, manipulation and outright fabrications in support of the above. Makes "listen and believe" a real problem, especially for psychopathic females with no scruples of using the tools at their disposal to get ahead.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 15:25:19 "It leads to systematically undervaluing that individuals work and merit, being passed over for future promotion,and being sidelined." Read words. Getting sidelined, having no further avenue for promotion, !!!!!!!======= getting completely fired, with no income and minimal prospects for being hired elsewhere. It is not the fucking same. "So don't tell me there's no comparable risks." Apparently seb thinks earning a paycheck and having a job is equivalent to not earning a paycheck and getting fired. These two states are comparable, per seb.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 15:28:38 You know what women can do when they reach their ceiling at a given company? Go elsewhere. Especially if their ceiling is artificially enforced. People do it all the time. Sure, it sucks when that ceiling is because you had principles and didn't make sexy time with someone, sure that's even wrong (unless we ask mt, he supports it).
Dukhat Member	Sat Aug 25 16:51:21 "A truth that people dont want to deal with is while are predisposed to compete via strength, ability, emotional banter and outright fighting, women tend to compete via rumor, reputation destruction, manipulation and outright fabrications in support of the above. Makes "listen and believe" a real problem, especially for psychopathic females with no scruples of using the tools at their disposal to get ahead." President Trump is a woman according to your standard. Got a chip on your shoulder against a woman in your life or something Aeros? And in-group/out-group psychology is not gender-specific. It is the most basic and raw part of human nature and socialization. That being said, many higher-level jobs and occupations add more qualifications than just "being good at manipulating." You don't see many doctors or scientists engaging in as much reality-tv-show-level backstabbing though it certain does exist. In fact having a diverse workplace does tend to limit the craziness especially when there is no clear majority in-group.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 17:00:07 Aeros: Utter bollocks. Hood: I see you are unfamiliar with up-or-out. I also provided examples of people being fired from senior executive positions which is hard to recover from. It's the same. Either way your prospects suck. I'm not at all interested in someone who is trying to scope the limits so obviously to address only a sliver of the issue. It undermines your credibility.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 17:01:48 Nim: Only there are huge numbers of documented cases validated through the courts. This is a far cry from asking someone to disprove a type of person exists somewhere on the world.
murder Member	Sat Aug 25 17:26:03 "murder yes the PoundMeToo movement ..." Good god kargen! Where the fuck are you hanging out when you're not here? The "PoundMeToo movement" crap is straight out of screwball right wing sites.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 18:06:27 "being fired from senior executive positions which is hard to recover from." So like 1 of 100,000 people? For just about anyone else (and even those people; you clearly haven't been paying attention) getting a new job isn't that difficult. It might not be the same thing you were doing before and hell, you may even have to downgrade a little. But you're still employable. "a sliver of the issue." What? You are comparing reaching a ceiling against being accused of sexual harassment. They are wildly different things and when called out on it... you aren't interested in the sliver of the issue (finding a new job)? I'd hardly call employability a sliver of the issue. But I guess this is what I get when arguing with a fanatic who cannot understand words.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 18:10:13 Hood: Vastly more than men who have been been fired without due process over public but false accusations of sexual harassment. Hence, not at all interested in talking about this problem with you when you are so deeply uninterested in much bigger, more serious structural issues.
Seb Member	Sat Aug 25 18:18:03 It is not easy to get a new job when you've clearly left an organisation due to not being promoted. The very strong implication is your not up to the job. And you are tenaciously holding onto "hit a curling" when I spoke of being passed over because of rumours that you screwed the boss to get a promotion. That follows you too. Hood, you are not serious if you are not going to even acknowledge let alone engage with and discover the structural issues affecting woman. The fact it has taken public schools cual media shaming because other avenues don't work is entirely a consequence of people like you who pretend this shot doesn't happen and isn't serious enough to address. The meetoo movement is a consequence of your indifference. Society has had decades to solve the problem of men placing other men's reputation above women's livelihood. Understandably, women sent going to play by that rulebook. Complaining about it now is pointless. It's done.
hood Member	Sat Aug 25 19:01:13 I like how seb has taken "the stigma of using sex for advancement is not equatable to being accused of sexual misconduct" and extrapolated it (all on his own) to mean this: "The fact it has taken public schools cual media shaming because other avenues don't work is entirely a consequence of people like you who pretend this shot doesn't happen and isn't serious enough to address." Please, retard, quote where I denied that what you bring up is a problem. Please cite evidence to support your false accusations towards me and/or my opinions on women in the work place. And for good measure, please consider just how strongly you hold onto your own fabrications and continually libel me with accusations of sexism (and, like, then imagine that this was in a work setting with other people listening). Now be off with you, fanatical cunt.
obaminated Member	Sat Aug 25 22:32:15 "(unless we ask mt, he supports it)" once again, i don't support it, i simply understand it exists and will never go away because both men and women use it to their advantage.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 04:07:51 >>Only there are huge numbers of documented cases validated through the courts.<< Is this the scientist in you speaking? The guy who understand statistics? What is ”a huge” number? Out of how many? And please give me something better than r=0.02 lol :)
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 06:07:43 Hood: Firstly, you spent several posts trying to suggest that women falsely targeted by rumours they slept their way to their job was merely "hitting a ceiling". Then you asserted without basis the consequences are not the same. They are: essentially you get shoved out and never work at the same level in that industry again. Now you are waffling on demanding I prove a negative. The simple fact is you don't acknowledge or engage with this problem, and down play it, demanding instead we focus on a vanishingly small number of false accusations. Why should I engage with you when you are so transparently unitrested in an equitable outcome and so obviously engaging in bad faith when you seek to mischaracterise the issues facing women as unimportant, less severe, and even a natural process of hitting a ceiling rather than being deliberately held back? I'm just not interested in debating someone whose so obviously dishonest.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 06:08:47 Nim: Why don't you do the math and show me it's unimportant then.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Aug 26 06:32:39 “The "PoundMeToo movement" crap is straight out of screwball right wing sites.“ Murder thinks that only “screwball right wing sites” could ever possibly have realized that “#MeToo” could also [unintentionally/comically] mean “PoundMeToo”? That doesn’t seem very imaginative.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 08:36:34 >>Why don't you do the math and show me it's unimportant then.<< 1 + 1 = 2 I know atleast 8 women who had sex with a superior and benefited from it. Both are equally unethical. 8 - 2 = 6 So I win by 6 anecdotes. Thanks for playing :)
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 09:55:26 Nim: See, you ask for robust statistics, but aren't willing to put them up yourself. You know that's inadequate to the standards you implied. But if you are in good faith, that's your best effort then? I'm breaking down UK employment tribunal stats. I'm on holiday now, but I'll let you know when it's done.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 10:02:36 Also, let's look at Nims logic. The argument appears to be that because (so he claims) that more people sleep with their bosses and benefit, those that do not but are accused of it and suffer are smaller, it is ok for those women accused falsely and suffer because some other women beexit and they do. Does this seem logical to anyone else?
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 10:03:01 One equation is oranges. The other apples.
Forwyn Member	Sun Aug 26 10:07:48 You said the same about the other side of the equation, friendo.
hood Member	Sun Aug 26 11:28:59 "Then you asserted without basis the consequences are not the same. They are: essentially you get shoved out and never work at the same level in that industry again." So you can still work elsewhere? Sexual misconduct = no job. 1 != 0. Apples and oranges. "Now you are waffling on demanding I prove a negative." Asking you for evidence supporting your libelous accusations against my character is asking you to prove a negative? Maybe that means your evidence is thin-to-nonexistent, fuckstain. "The simple fact is you don't acknowledge or engage with this problem" Because the topic of the thread is not women sleeping their way to the top or punishments for refusal. You seem to be really fucking silent in the threads about that topic where I argue that it should all be put to pasture and people be judged on merit, not sexual prowess/attractiveness. Quick question: Where do you think we got this whole "mt supports exploiting women for sex" thing? Do you think it just popped up out of nowhere? "demanding instead we focus on a vanishingly small number of false accusations." No, murder and seb demanded we focus on women being treated poorly as evidence for their "eh, fuck men; they deserve to be falsely accused, they're probably guilty of mistreating women anyway!" attitude. I noted that the consequences are vastly different (see: jobs available after incident vs. unhirable). Do you have the capability to follow conversations and understand words? "Why should I engage with you when you are so transparently unitrested in an equitable outcome and so obviously engaging in bad faith when you seek to mischaracterise the issues facing women as unimportant, less severe, and even a natural process of hitting a ceiling rather than being deliberately held back?" Ok... 1. Uninterested in an equitable outcome? Provide documented evidence. 2. Women being subject to sexual misconduct was not the topic of the thread. I have attempted to stay on topic, nothing more. It's called context. 3. Mischaracterize issues facing women? If by saying "having job prospects after an incident is not the same as being unemployable" is mischaracterizations, well you're just retarded. 4. Less severe? Uh, yes. Still being able to find reasonable work (that you may be overqualified for) is most definitely less severe than being unable to find work. 5. Holy fuck you cannot understand words. I did not suggest that punishment a woman may receive for refusing to be sexually harassed was a natural ceiling. I equated the outcome to the natural ceiling so many people do have. I did this because it demonstrates the very clear difference between bumping into a ceiling and having the floor drop out from beneath you. Nowhere did I remotely imply this imposed ceiling as a result of refusing sexual advances was natural. In fact, I request you swiftly apologize for such a retarded conclusion and correct your statements. You are that wrong and that stupid.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 11:53:36 seb I don’t need to put forward any evidence for something I don’t think. I can hold more than one thought in my head at the same time.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 12:08:42 Forwyn: I said I wasn't interested in discussing the issue of the systemic risks from the meetoo approach with people who don't even acknowledge the systemic risks of the status quo. That's rather different. Hood: I think you are rather retarded. I've explained how people lose their job. "Asking you for evidence supporting your libelous accusations" I can't point to evidence of your support for women because to my knowledge you have never once made any. On the other hand you have consistently downplayed serious points, which is what I'm accusing you of, and which you have done in this thread. It ain't libel if it's true. This is not a separate issue: the metoo approach is because of widespread harassment of women. This thread is a critique of the approach because of the systemic risk of the odd false accusation. Nim: You can't hold *one* thought on your head for any length of time, as your piss poor logic in your previous post demobstrates.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 12:11:01 seb There is no logic to follow, there is not math to do. Just your ancdotes vs mine.
hood Member	Sun Aug 26 12:29:25 "I've explained how people lose their job." You do not understand words if you think that this was in contention. "I can't point to evidence of your support for women because to my knowledge you have never once made any." Despite citing one in my post. "On the other hand you have consistently downplayed serious points" Saying something is off topic is not downplaying the importance of a point to society, it is downplaying the importance to the specific topic. It's really weird how you don't understand the idea of perspective and context. "This is not a separate issue" So you're on record as saying that the integrity of women cannot be separated from metoo? Somehow I don't think that's what you're trying to say.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 12:51:02 Nim: The point is your annecdote does not contradict mine. Mine is about two people falsely accused and drummed put. Yours is about six people who did actually sleep with their bosses and prospered by it. As I said, you can't keep one thought in your head long enough to write a single post. But luckily we do have stats etc. This bizarre thing you have of denying sexism in the workplace is hardly worth addressing. It's up there with the "moon landing was faked" crowd.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 12:55:23 Hood: If that's no in contention, then why do you keep saying varients of: "So you can still work elsewhere? Sexual misconduct = no job. 1 != 0. Apples and oranges." Being fired *without* due process, individuals can still get employed. Probably not on the same industry. Same as women drummed out after being accused of sleeping with their bosses. People fired with due process almost certainly deserve it.
hood Member	Sun Aug 26 13:07:00 "Being fired *without* due process, individuals can still get employed." Are you going to hire someone who got fired over allegations of sexual harassment/misconduct? Who are you more likely to hire: someone who was fired for reasons of "having reached their maximum potential" or someone who was fired for "allegations of sexual harassment"? I can tell you who I'd hire.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 13:43:35 hood: Firstly, I am wondering how much thought you've put into this. How am I, an employer, going to know? The individual may decline to give a reference. But the reality is that anyone leaving under these circumstances (where there has been no internal disciplinary process) is going to be leaving in a situation where it's not "formalised" that they did anything wrong. So any formal reference that accuses them of doing such would be open to being sued for huge amounts: quite simply, the formal reference cannot say "we let him go because of allegations of sexual misconduct" if they didn't formally go through a disciplinary period - and they would then have to either admit libel in court, or they would have to argue that there was evidence but they didn't go through formal processes but covered it up. The latter is worse at it is not only incredibly weak and unlikely to stand up in court, but simply making that argument opens them up to damage claims from the victim too. So basically, people who leave informally are often massively protected. Their former employer will not be saying "allegations of sexual harassment". This is why people who repeatedly engage in sexual harassment and are quietly ushered on keep getting re-hired. This is a phenomenon that is so well known and documented it's hard to take you seriously as you've clearly not done basic due diligence (e.g. look at several people swept up in me too, like several of the charity heads that keep getting moved on and re-hired by other charities). Basically, firms have a long and proven track record of hushing up sexual harassment, defending it, and moving offenders off (sometimes even helping them find new work). And of course, often the victims of harassment are less senior than the person doing the harassment, so it's often easier and less disruptive to let the junior person go, with a discrete payoff and NDA. Hence, #metoo - people are getting fed up of this shit. So now lets think about how people would find out that the new potential hire was a serial harasser. The only way is via informal trusted channels - i.e. work and social networks - so it's not "any job ever", it's any job in that industry (depending on the size of industry and geographic market segmentation), provided someone is willing to talk about it. And lets flip it around: would you hire someone whose previous employer had a workplace affair in an attempt to secure corrupt promotion? The potential for harassment claims is huge. So actually, the situation is near identical. Other than now people are making public these accusations - but the reason for this happening is because of a very long and well established history of male sexual harassers getting away with it. And women are exposed to the same risks. Yeah it sucks, but the reason we cannot have nice things is because people like you keep turning a blind eye to the huge ammount of sexual harassment and discrimination that happens to women, and instead obsessing about other men's reputations. If people could have confidence that sexual harassment and sex discrimination was being properly addressed and tackled, people wouldn't be taking to social media in an effort to prove that it is not.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 13:47:13 "The point is your annecdote does not contradict mine." The point is that they are anecdotes. Incidentally that was the premise of the github study, it said it right at the beginning "anecdotal evidence suggests". >>This bizarre thing you have of denying sexism in the workplace is hardly worth addressing.<< Don't address things people haven't said. That is solid advice.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Aug 26 13:57:05 hood Just... remember, that seb cited a study where r = 0.02, a study that did not establish any cause or explained anything, as robust evidence for "causal mechanism". All I am saying is that if someone is convinced by such "evidence", well you can pretty much find evidence for anything you please. This is your creationist, full fledged with pointing out your sins and blasphemy as reason and evidence fails them.
hood Member	Sun Aug 26 15:29:31 Gotta love how seb claims 2 things are identical, completely forgetting that #metoo is all about public shaming and not informal conversations. Yeah, completely fucking the same. @ nim: Oh I know seb is full of shit. 0 evidence, all anecdotes. Any counter evidence bumps up against "well I've seen it so clearly you are stupid or ignorant or not in a position to see it." I think what I'm taking from all of seb's arguments is that the UK is a complete fucking shithole, based on how often he sees bad actors in his workplace. Just shitty, awful people everywhere.
Seb Member	Sun Aug 26 17:09:36 Nim: 1. Do you deny this stuff doesn't happen? And tribunal records are not annecdotes. 2. Are you seriously claiming the GitHub study is an annecdotes because it references the annecdotal evidence as motivation? This is what I mean about you being incapable of reading papers. 3. Absolutely you have. I've pointed out the fact there is a very robust evidence base to the phenomenonology and you simply dismiss it. You don't seem to understand you do not need detailed statistical evidence to prove a phenomenology exists even if you cannot characterise it quantitatively. 4. The causal mechanism doesnt need to be proven (though it is highly suggestive and consistentvwith bias, and you've not put forward an alternative hypothesis) the phenomenon itself is likely to *create* bias in recruitment via the mechanism I set out which justified the point. Can you explain what the significance of r=0.02? You seem to have latched onto this as being in some way problematic when it shows a positive correlation. What number are you looking for here begore it becomes meaningful and why? It also clearly relates to the 4.1% overall increased acceptance rate when the result of interest is the reduction in acceptance rate in outsiders of identifiable women from gender neutral. So is very irrelevant but you keep pulling it up, even though I've repeatedly clarified why it's not relevant to the argument I'm making. Perhaps you dont understand but are cargo culting again? It's also a bit rich to hear about anecdotes from a guy that justified invoking "hypocrites" on the basis it was entirely likely some might exist, even if you had no specific evidence of them. Hood: So, do you deny that there is a substantial body of proven sexual harassment cases against women? If you don't, why are you asking for evidence?
hood Member	Sun Aug 26 18:42:52 Seb is that "first world problems" asshole that nobody likes. You know the type - the one that opposes any progress of any kind until all of the world's worse problems are solved. "Like, how could you complain about Chipotle making you sick when people in Africa don't even have McDonalds?" And when you bring up the radical concept of solving multiple problems at once, they get all up in a huff and continue to deny or make light of the issue of topic. "So, do you deny that there is a substantial body of proven sexual harassment cases against women?" How is this relevant to the point you were trying to make? You brought up unproven, word-of-mouth cases as the evil villain holding down womenkind, and that this widespread prejudice was equivalent to public shaming, ala #metoo.
jergul large member	Mon Aug 27 01:13:33 Seb You know the driving force here is sentimentalism? People suspend disbelief, create a scenario where they would be emotionally outraged as it is in effect happening to them, and presto, you have threads like this. Sentimentalism and kewl kid cynicism are the mind rots of the 21st century.
jergul large member	Mon Aug 27 01:20:20 Hood "Public shaming" is probably something we should get over. Its not a relevant sentiment in a global village (if everyone can be outed for something, then something becomes nothing).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 02:45:21 1. No 2. It’s not evidence for anything 3. You have posted one study 4. No one denies the existance of assholes, you claim systematic bias towards women. Requires evidence beyond random assholes. The fact that you call an effect size of 0.02 ”positive correlation” should be a warning sign to everyone else. If this had been a clinical trial, the shares of your start up would have lost 90% of their value. You should read the study you posted, are the effects meaningful they ask? They tell the reader to make up their own mind, but the answer is NO. Meanwhile stereotype accuracy as a phenomena has an effect size >0.5 one of the highest in social psychology. Yes stereotypes are moderatly accurate. You could call that moderatly positive correlation, but it isn’t great and it would still be wrong to stereotype people. I understand that. But you don’t. Again right in the study and common knowledge that when you have large sample sizes and through the very common practice of p hacking in social science (because getting significant results is difficult in social science) you can easily get statistically significant results. That is why effects size is important (and still not common in SS), for all their flaws the authors of the study give us the effect size. How meaningful are the results? Not very, it is like meassuring 900 ml of piss to 95% confidence and dumping it into a lake. Oooo look at the ripples!! You are uneducated and dishonest. Very bad combo. If you insist on viewing behavioral dynamic as isolated, where male behavior exists in a vacum and is not entangled with the female, then you will also have this empoverished way of looking at things. There is no discussion to be had with someone who comes out of the gates with one group as the enemy, there can only be war. Which will not end well for you, forget about the current state of research, your starting point gurantees this.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 27 04:17:25 Hood: No. You are the one arguing that metoo is dangerous and must stop, despite it being the only effective response to widespread behaviour and having no viable alternative on the basis of a risk that appears miniscule. You can tackle chipotle and Africa starvation separately. On the other hand we are arguing over two sides of the same coin here. How is it relevant? It's like this: why would you debate how a manned mission to Mars would work with a guy whose starting position is that the sky is a crystal bowl holding back the waters? You are asking for detailed proof of a widely observed phenomenon. At some point you must educate yourself.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 27 05:11:24 Nim: 1. Then why demand evidence of a phenomenon you admit exists? 2. Clearly not the case. 3. I've posted others in the past. Given the sheer effort of getting you to understand this one, let's take baby steps. Once you understand this one. 4. Can you explain to me what you think systematic means? Right, onto your sterile and irrelevant Pearson's correlation coefficient nonsense. Firstly, Holy shit. Your threshold for considering something real is "is it as effective as a medical drug". Secondly I really don't think you understand at all what correlation coefficient is here. It's measuring the size of the effect not likelihood it is true. They use three methods iirc to do so. I'm not going to be drawn into your reference of Jussims stuff because I haven't the time to critique, other than to note that it's not clear how he's using r here, and that he repeatedly points out an r of 0.5 is the largest correlation in psychology. Not moderate. Given there are so many factors affecting a given phenomenology in psychology, high correlations would be odd. You also ignore that jussims studies were on group stereotypes (i.e. accuracy of the groups aggregate stereotyping) not the stereotyping by an individual; and is accurate only in aggregate to the class. That's why it's wrong to stereotype individuals (nothing to do with the r at all): the stereotyping expressed by an individual is less accurate than the group's collective and not very accurate when the stereotype is applied to an individual. Again, you've misunderstood the meaning of r in this instance. In our case correlation of more than 0.5 would suggest e.g. that gender was more important than other factors (e.g. whether the proposed code change worked) which is an absurdly high bar given the direct cost to the project. Thirdly, you've not addressed the fundamental issue that you are using the estimate for the size of the overall difference between men and women, not the relevant result which is the delta in outsider gender neutral and female. I don't know why you are hung up on statistical significance here. It's not key to my argument and it's not clear what your point is. There's a circa 10% drop in women's pull request acceptance rate when their gender is known. There are few plausible reasons why this would be, and it's suggestive of bias. The impact of that is significant. It would mean a woman would have to do 16% more work to get the same portfolio as they would otherwise have done if not identified as female; all other things being equal. That's a heck of a disadvantage when OS contributions are a key factor in getting entry level jobs. The r for that effect is unpublished, but you are welcome to calculate it yourself instead of quoting the wrong figure from the wrong part of the study.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 07:21:14 >>1. Then why demand evidence of a phenomenon you admit exists?<< Because before I divert large amounts of societal resources to solve a "problem" someone presents to me, I wan't to know how big the problem is and how it occurs. I need to understand the "problem", does it fit the description, what are the pathways and so on. I know unorthodox methods. Otherwise you may be smashing in 10 mm nails with a giant sledgehammer. Are you familiar with the concept of making a hen out of a feather? I mean feathers DO exist, no one denies that, but they are not hens. How many fallacies do you run into extrapolating from a "phenomena" + anecdotal evidence and reading feminist click bait? All possible ones.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 07:27:37 "No. You are the one arguing that metoo is dangerous and must stop" Please quote where I have said this. See, I'm reasonably certain that all I've said is that it's reasonably understandable that men would try to avoid false accusations of harassment (by avoiding any potential blind spots in their job in relation to women). "You can tackle chipotle and Africa starvation separately." It's really funny that you think you're on that side of the argument when you're the person who is plenty willing to categorically dismiss any potential harm via false accusations. But every villain thinks that they're the hero, so I guess I understand. "You are asking for detailed proof of a widely observed phenomenon." Actually, Lord of the Shithole Islands, I'm just pointing out that you never provide proof. Nim would be the person asking for detailed proof via scientific studies. What is it with fanatics and their inability to keep conversations and facts straight? "Hood "Public shaming" is probably something we should get over. Its not a relevant sentiment in a global village (if everyone can be outed for something, then something becomes nothing)." Yes, jergul, I generally agree with this. I've been against public shaming for quite a while. In fact, I think the beginning throes of #metoo was the only time I really found public shaming acceptable.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 27 08:26:48 Nim: You are not asking for those things - you start off dismissing there is even anything to look at. You have spoken in the past about the dangers of metoo, yet you have not quantified those. So it looks rather like simple cant. Hood: "It's really funny that you think you're on that side of the argument when you're the person who is plenty willing to categorically dismiss any potential harm via false accusations." I said I wasn't willing to discuss it with people who are not willing to acknowledge the harm that has come about from a culture of impunity. "I'm just pointing out that you never provide proof." Except, you know, I have. E.g. the github study. Asking for proof that sexism and bias exists is like asking for proof the moon isn't made of cheese. No, worse than that, it's like asking if the sky is blue. Open your fucking eyes. "In fact, I think the beginning throes of #metoo was the only time I really found public shaming acceptable." I recall you being rather supportive of the right for people to publicly shame women game devs etc. during gamer gate. You spend all your time quibbling, you hardly ever set out a coherent position. Just moan, whine and bitch and demand proof of this that and the other. Stop being a weasel.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 08:50:43 "I recall you being rather supportive of the right for people to publicly shame women game devs etc. during gamer gate." I do support people's right to comment on a public space. I don't agree with public shaming, but I support someone's right to do it. They're just tardmuffins. What you're trying to suggest is that I supported the actual public shaming, which would be your shit memory at work. I almost assuredly never mentioned support for the public shaming and instead offered judgment on what was made public (as, well, you can't put the genie back in the bottle). I'd be happy to double down on Sarkasian, or whatever her name is, being a complete fucking retard. That's entirely different than my thoughts on whether she should be subject to a mob of public shaming or have her livelihood affected by the opinions of rabble. We can speak more contemporarily: Jessica Price. You'll recall I didn't support her being punished for the mob that went after her. At the same time, I recognized that she brought it upon herself and that her employer was well within rights to fire her over the incident. Of course, most of that argument wasn't spent on that topic, but in whether Seb thought she was the provoked or provoker.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 09:06:17 "You are not asking for those things - you start off dismissing there is even anything to look at." Because you are stupid and do not pay attention. Should I digg up year old thread explaining why I am skeptical towards social science studies? Have I not explained it once before TODAY. Here is what happens: You come to the incel forums, you assert things, people get "curious" and ask questions and for evidence, you fail to produce them and start waffeling about robust phenomenology and WAAAAA that we don't even believe assholes exists. Even though we have recently spoken a lot about assholes. Useless.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 09:21:49 "You have spoken in the past about the dangers of metoo, yet you have not quantified those." I can be totally wrong about metoo and it will end up being a GREAT thing. I predicted it would blow up in everyone face, which it is. When people call for the destruction or sidestepping of due process, that is a _principle_ disagreement over the how to organize the judicial system. It is part of the foundation of a democratic system, it is _universal_ for all individuals as far as the specific country goes. Any changes to it will also have universal implications. You believe that the damage of removing due process, needs to be quantified? Are you this stupid? Yes.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 09:37:29 So seb does not understand the difference between A universal judicial process and behavioral studies hint: One of them applies to everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity or religion, whether they want it or not. The other one varies depending on more factors than sebs brain is educated to deal with. So yes! My worries about metoo (or any change in legislation or the judiciary) can be generalized, as law and order applies to everyone, while social science studies generally can not. You are an idiot.
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 09:59:35 "When people call for the destruction or sidestepping of due process ..." Which is exactly what every opponent of #MeToo is doing. A return to the past when predators roamed unmolested, and women accepted molestation as a cost of living. There was usually zero due process, and where it existed, it was a farce. All these men evangelizing about due process now ... I don't remember their calls for justice before. These objections to the #MeToo movement deserve the exact same weight as opponents of it gave to justice before ... and frankly still do. This opposition to #MeToo mirrors the opposition to racial justice. If we're being forced to finally recognize your equality, then history starts now! How dare you discriminate against white male me when everyone is supposed to be equal? Well ... because we're not. The Bastille has just been stormed. When too much blood has been spilled, I guess we'll have to reevaluate. But until then, the guillotine and mob violence will do just fine.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 10:04:02 ""When people call for the destruction or sidestepping of due process ..." Which is exactly what every opponent of #MeToo is doing." This is where we pat murder on the head and play along with his delusion. Yes, murder, you totally understand the words you used. Definitely. "The Bastille has just been stormed. When too much blood has been spilled, I guess we'll have to reevaluate. But until then, the guillotine and mob violence will do just fine." In case you needed more evidence that murder is a retarded barbarian...
Delude Member	Mon Aug 27 10:07:09 This is turning out how I suspected it would and I have so much to comment. But yet can't afford the time to do so at the moment.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 10:17:50 "The Bastille has just been stormed. When too much blood has been spilled, I guess we'll have to reevaluate. But until then, the guillotine and mob violence will do just fine." lol :) wow... some one has drunk ALL the cool aid AKA Vagina juice. So if it isn't obvious, I disagree! I think that while we do have issues and room for improvement, we do not need to line people against walls and shoot them or behead them. If you really believe that, you should meet a professional and see what the fuck else is wrong with you.
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 10:35:08 What is wrong with me is the state of affairs that half the population has been happily inflicting on the other half forever. It's your turn to get your pussy grabbed and like it.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 10:38:17 "half" Try a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 10:43:21 No ... you're leaving out the enablers.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 10:50:23 No, you're illogical and retarded. But when including enablers (actual enablers, not just "men" as you would define enablers), we still end up with a statistically insignificant portion of the population. It's just a slightly larger insignificance. If we actually took the spirit of your definition to heart (and not just the retarded "all men" conclusion you've come to), we'd be looking at upwards of 90% of the population.
Paramount Member	Mon Aug 27 10:51:32 ”we simply can’t ignore the need for due process. Men who are accused of misconduct must be seen as innocent until proven guilty.” Not according to Obaminated. If a woman says she has been raped, the police must arrest him, even if they don’t even know the identity of the man, the police must arrest some random man on the street.
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 11:33:03 "But when including enablers (actual enablers, not just "men" as you would define enablers), we still end up with a statistically insignificant portion of the population. It's just a slightly larger insignificance." That explains the circumstance that has existed forever. Actually, that doesn't even deserve a response, but I'm responding because I don't think you'd catch your own ridiculousness otherwise.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 11:53:40 Are you an enabler, murder?
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 11:56:08 No.
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 12:09:49 "Nimatzo Are you an enabler, murder? murder No." Is this murder's way of telling us that murder is female?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 12:14:49 murder And we are to take your word for it? If metoo taught me anything it is that the most vehement and often quickest to support summary justice are the worst types. Do you think you are the only person to deny you enabling?
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 12:25:45 "Is this murder's way of telling us that murder is female?" That would explain a lot.
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 12:28:49 "And we are to take your word for it?" It doesn't really matter, does it? Randos on the internet and all that. Should people in my life take my word for it? I've never given them or anyone else cause not to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 13:02:00 So you are a woman then?
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 13:15:22 I like romcoms, so I'm either a very large hairy woman, or half a fag. The jury is still out on that. :o)
murder Member	Mon Aug 27 13:18:21 For the record, I'm 6'4 ~ 240 lbs and have a full beard. So rather plain looking for a woman in most of the world ... and a 10 in the former East Germany. ;o)
hood Member	Mon Aug 27 13:46:47 "For the record, I'm 6'4 ~ 240 lbs and have a full beard" So a rapist?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 27 13:52:25 Well then you belong to the enabling half. I am excluded btw, since I an not a ”white male”. I am nominally muslim looking with my black and grey beard. I think the apple watch saves me, well atleast that is what I tell myself, because dam it I like to challange societal norms, I see their eyes and defiently think yea, profile this you prejudiced racist fucks! Fear my jihad beard! Yes I decided to get a beard as a sociopolitical stance for manhood and against profling muslim looking men with beards. I had lunch with my former boss and he asked if this was an ayatollah beard, I said hahaha no this is my jihad beard! I have finally decided to jihad! I don’t give a fuck I know the right people I have the right job, I am married fheuuuuuuuck yoooooouuuu. The point is very simple, but I decided to fill the post out with an ancdote about myself, every knows that a good pussy can take a pounding better than a man can take it on the chin. Stop thinking of women as helpless creatures, give them a gun instead and teach ’em how to use it.
Seb Member	Mon Aug 27 14:21:47 tl;dr on the other thread. I downloaded the supplemental data and calculated the r (not, as explained in the other account, that this is hugely meaningful). To summarise: So, in summary: Article shows that there is a significant reduction (about 8% points, or an 11% reduction in acceptance rate) in the liklihood of women outsiders having their pull requests accepted if they can be identified as a woman. This has a relatively strong r, and is very (around 3 and 4 times respectively) large compared to other factors explored that effect PR acceptance rates: experience (i.e. number of prior PRs) and complexity (number of files in PR) - which cause effects of 3% and 2% (percentage points) when doubled over the ranges cited. The r between identifiability and success is -0.35 if you are a woman, which is a strong effect by social science standards. It corresponds to women identified as women having to work 16% as hard to develop the same portfolio as if they were not identified as women on average. Given the importance of a portfolio of OS contributions to successful job applications in entry level and early-career posts, this is a substantially un-level playing field. ___ Hood: See above, is this evidence yet? Nim: Would you like to apologize for deliberately and knowingly mischaracterising my point with your reference to r=0.022, particularly when you could have calculated it from the data presented in the paper and therefore had no excuse whatsoever to be citing r=0.022 if (as you claim) properly understood my argument. Alternatively would you like to appologize for lying and claiming you understood the argument when you did not? Or I suppose it possible you could actually be honest and admit you don't have the faintest clue about what you are talking about and are just randomly constructing rhetorical strings based on snippets you don't understand, making it up as you go along?
	show deleted posts