Random A place to have long, boring and annoying conversations with unlikable people

[Cannon82]

Maybe I will eventually get around to responding to some of the long-winded comments in the other threads, so I've made a separate thread here for now.

On topic: recent case of "positive" discrimination

Do you think this is admirable or justified? If so, why are you mentally deficient?

Salc0 Tulip Toump Ass

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm boring and I don't like you. I should be tagged

 

[Cannon82]

I'm boring and I don't like you. I should be tagged

Get in line, cowgirl.

 

[Toump Ass]

Do you think this is admirable or justified?

Women are smarter than men so advancing them in scientific fields will progress the human race's knowledge exponentially, while men are free to do manly things that they're good at, like digging holes, and drinking bourbon etc.

Hehe just kidding.

Some studies suggest that men are more likely to succeed at science, technology, engineering and maths but no one can say whether this is due to biological factors or cultural and social factors. Measures to increase women's representation in STEM fields would hopefully encourage more women to consider these careers, limit any unconscious bias that affects the hiring of women in these positions, and fix the gender imbalance in these fields.

On the other hand, another way to minimise the (sizeable) difference between the men and women in STEM fields could be to simply help women in getting qualified- and (hopefully) when that's done, the universities will pick the best candidate for the job.

So: admirable but maybe not entirely justified.

I think as far as this particular case goes it's all a little bit of theatre anyway- there appears to be hundreds of jobs available so I'm not sure how much of an issue women having the first chance to apply is really going to affect anyone. You'd want to hope the other candidates are onboard with the idea though..


Anyway, at the end of the day, there's discrimination in every workplace, at least these guys are being upfront about it.

 

[Cannon82]

Women are smarter than men so advancing them in scientific fields will progress the human race's knowledge exponentially, while men are free to do manly things that they're good at, like digging holes, and drinking bourbon etc.

Hehe just kidding.

Some studies suggest that men are more likely to succeed at science, technology, engineering and maths but no one can say whether this is due to biological factors or cultural and social factors. Measures to increase women's representation in STEM fields would hopefully encourage more women to consider these careers, limit any unconscious bias that affects the hiring of women in these positions, and fix the gender imbalance in these fields.

On the other hand, another way to minimise the (sizeable) difference between the men and women in STEM fields could be to simply help women in getting qualified- and (hopefully) when that's done, the universities will pick the best candidate for the job.

So: admirable but maybe not entirely justified.

I think as far as this particular case goes it's all a little bit of theatre anyway- there appears to be hundreds of jobs available so I'm not sure how much of an issue women having the first chance to apply is really going to affect anyone. You'd want to hope the other candidates are onboard with the idea though..


Anyway, at the end of the day, there's discrimination in every workplace, at least these guys are being upfront about it.

That is truly terrible logic. "There's discrimination in every workplace" so go nuts and ban men from applying for positions until they've been out 6 months? You don't "solve" perceived / assumed discrimination by implementing actual, systemic discrimination.

If they want to pick the best candidate for the job, they can do that without limiting the pool of candidates by whatever plumbing they happen to have. Women are just as capable as men and deserve the same opportunities, so why do they then need a free run at jobs without having to compete against men if they're just as capable and qualified? This absolutely affects people, ie the men who would like to apply for those jobs. If you want people to think women in certain fields are incompetent and don't deserve the positions they get, then this is a fantastic way to achieve that.

 

[Toump Ass]

That is truly terrible logic. "There's discrimination in every workplace" so go nuts and ban men from applying for positions until they've been out 6 months? You don't "solve" perceived / assumed discrimination by implementing actual, systemic discrimination.

Sure, pick the throwaway line at the end and we'll run with that

If they want to pick the best candidate for the job, they can do that without limiting the pool of candidates by whatever plumbing they happen to have.

They could, but they don't, which is sadly why we have measures like this.

Women are just as capable as men and deserve the same opportunities

More capable I would say, but yes.

So why do they then need a free run at jobs without having to compete against men if they're just as capable and qualified?

Because it's not a level playing field. Studies show that men tend to favour men in recruitment. Men are (incorrectly) perceived to be better than women in certain tasks. Women are the victim of incorrect stereotypes (ie: they are "crazy" or "more neurotic" etc.). Women are the victim of other bias (ie: it's assumed they will be the primary care givers of children and therefore require more time off).

(And on top of that it's likely women are discouraged from undertaking degrees in STEM due to the lack of female role models which this measure also addresses. No surprise that this is an engineering university trialling this measure where women are more likely to be misrepresented.)

This absolutely affects people, ie the men who would like to apply for those jobs. If you want people to think women in certain fields are incompetent and don't deserve the positions they get, then this is a fantastic way to achieve that.

Agreed. It definitely could perpetuate the stereotype that women aren't as capable. And I imagine it would cause a fair bit of anger if hard-working colleagues were locked out of a job they really wanted due to their junk (but, as I said before, at least the uni is upfront about it).

Once again: admirable in intention but maybe not the best solution. But do you have a better one? How would you get more women into STEM fields- or do you just ignore the fact that women either aren't choosing or aren't being accepted in these positions?

 

[Cannon82]

They could, but they don't, which is sadly why we have measures like this.

Rubbish. Evidence? Companies like making money and they like competent employees.

More capable I would say, but yes.

So you're admittedly sexist, not that it really needed to be stated outright. Amazing how women are so capable yet need so much assistance to compete against these less competent men. The only way that mess of a thought could possibly make sense in your mind is if you assume that men must be horribly biased towards men and shutting women out.

Because it's not a level playing field. Studies show that men tend to favour men in recruitment. Men are (incorrectly) perceived to be better than women in certain tasks. Women are the victim of incorrect stereotypes (ie: they are "crazy" or "more neurotic" etc.). Women are the victim of other bias (ie: it's assumed they will be the primary care givers of children and therefore require more time off).

You're right, its not a level playing field. Women are given more scholarships, more support services and preferential hiring for roles. They benefit from the "women are wonderful" effect that you're clearly a proud exponent of. You point to some studies, I can point to other studies that show that women have a strong in-group preference for women and that men are far more equal in their treatment between the sexes. Most studies are a waste of time and effort to read because a lot of them are drummed up by people who already have their conclusions mapped out. Far preferable to stick to logic and reasoning in these cases.

(And on top of that it's likely women are discouraged from undertaking degrees in STEM due to the lack of female role models which this measure also addresses. No surprise that this is an engineering university trialling this measure where women are more likely to be misrepresented.)

Women have had the red carpet rolled out for them in STEM fields for decades. They are a greatly desired demographic despite the fact that there is nothing inherently special about being a man or a woman. I laugh at this idea that they're being discouraged - is the university entrance ranking system designed to weed women out of engineering courses? Are there bouncers at career fairs stopping women from talking to people at certain stands? No, as usual, the only people stopping women from entering these fields are the women who choose not to pursue these courses. Yet again, go look up the STEM field gender splits in the Scandinavian countries which are widely acknowledged as the most "gender equitable" countries in the world. The split in the carer's fields and the engineering fields is more extreme than most other countries around the world because people are free to choose what they'd like to do. Or is Pakistan a more woman-friendly country according to your line of thinking?

Agreed. It definitely could perpetuate the stereotype that women aren't as capable. And I imagine it would cause a fair bit of anger if hard-working colleagues were locked out of a job they really wanted due to their junk (but, as I said before, at least the uni is upfront about it).

No s**t. Would you be okay with a company stating they're only going to hire men as long as they were up front about it?

Once again: admirable in intention but maybe not the best solution. But do you have a better one? How would you get more women into STEM fields- or do you just ignore the fact that women either aren't choosing or aren't being accepted in these positions?

Yes, its called equality of opportunity. Anyone can apply for a position and the people in charge of hiring examine their qualifications to determine the best candidate and offer that person the job. Crazy, I know, but if you want the best person for the job, it makes sense.

Why does the plumbing of the person applying for the position matter? Either men and women are equal and there shouldn't be any discrimination between the two, or they're not equal and therefore it is fine to discriminate along the lines of those differences in the same way you'd prefer to hire someone with 20 years of experience over someone with 6 months experience.


You've really bought into and swallowed the rhetoric here. Why are you so gullible when it comes to supporting such clear bias?

 

[Proper Gander]

A promising start for the people angry at women thread. Loving everyone’s work so far.

 

[Cannon82]

A promising start for the people angry at women thread. Loving everyone’s work so far.

Mmmm, when wanting a level playing field for everyone equates to being angry at / hating on women.

 

[Proper Gander]

Mmmm, when wanting a level playing field for everyone equates to being angry at / hating on women.

No it mostly doesn’t I would say, and is a discussion worth having.

There are certainly some specific people you might encounter from time to time that are just angry with women, and then it’s just a dead loss. I’m always happy to give ground in these situations though. It’s not me that is the lifelong loser. Loneliness and isolation is a hideous thing for an individual to deal with and I’m not going to hate on anyone in that situation

 

[Cannon82]

No it mostly doesn’t I would say, and is a discussion worth having.

There are certainly some specific people you might encounter from time to time that are just angry with women, and then it’s just a dead loss. I’m always happy to give ground in these situations though. It’s not me that is the lifelong loser. Loneliness and isolation is a hideous thing for an individual to deal with and I’m not going to hate on anyone in that situation

Plenty of man-haters out there as well, and its a far more socially acceptable point of view to hold. The Guardian and a number of other media sources will pay good money to get those thoughts into print.

 

[Proper Gander]

Plenty of man-haters out there as well, and its a far more socially acceptable point of view to hold. The Guardian and a number of other media sources will pay good money to get those thoughts into print.

Really? Right on and good point. It may be so and all (I don’t know - I’m lazy in reading media unless it’s arts reviews or recipes) but the Guardian isn’t exactly outselling the mainstream.

But look after yourself Cannon, and God bless you and so forth.

 

[Cannon82]

Really? Right on and good point. It may be so and all (I don’t know - I’m lazy in reading media unless it’s arts reviews or recipes) but the Guardian isn’t exactly outselling the mainstream.

But look after yourself Cannon, and God bless you and so forth.

Yes, God be with us and all and happy Chanukkah to you too.

 

[Proper Gander]

Yes, God be with us and all and happy Chanukkah to you too.

Thank you. I don’t know what that is but it sounds kind of Hebrew. Happy that to you also with apologies as required to Palestine

 

[Crimson Azure]

I nominate myself as patron saint of this thread.

 

[Crimson Azure]

It’s all swings and roundabouts. Yes, historically women have had a tougher time being recognised but it’s not the case today. I used to work in an industry the clearly favoured women for promotions. I’d say that 75%+ were site managers and senior management was mostly women. The only men who were promoted in our entire company were neck bearded misandrists or gay. They seemed to take deliberate steps not to promote men buts that’s the ‘all inclusive’ brand they wanted to promote.

Oh the struggles of being a white heterosexual male. No one listens to me anymore!

 

[Toump Ass]

Rubbish.

Nope.

Companies like making money and they like competent employees.

So you're saying the reason these companies are actively discriminating against men is because they want more competent employees and more money. Well of course. That's because women are smarter and better at their jobs then men. I'm glad we've found something we agree on.

So you're admittedly sexist

Enough of the -isms. It's not sexist if it's a fact.

You're right, its not a level playing field. Women are given more scholarships, more support services and preferential hiring for roles.

Well we could offer more support services for men to combat these horrible inequalities but that wouldn't work because men would be too stubborn/ stupid to use them.

Women have had the red carpet rolled out for them in STEM fields for decades. They are a greatly desired demographic despite the fact that there is nothing inherently special about being a man or a woman. I laugh at this idea that they're being discouraged - is the university entrance ranking system designed to weed women out of engineering courses? Are there bouncers at career fairs stopping women from talking to people at certain stands?

Sadly discrimination is a touch more subtle than you're making out.

Here's an example: A woman takes a photo of Dayne Swan and (allegedly) shares it. No admission of guilt. Charges dropped because no one testifies. Men are outraged and run to their computers to bitch about preferential treatment.

Nathan Broad takes an intimate photograph of a woman, lies about deleting it, then shares it with his mates who post it on the internet. No charges despite a (very) public admission of guilt. Men are outraged and run to their computers to explain how stupid women are for letting other people take photos of them.



Back to STEM- how are women discouraged from joining these subjects? Plenty of theories on that one.

And the decades of red carpet treatment? Outrageous. And to think we only just gave women equal pay and the right to vote...

Yet again, go look up the STEM field gender splits in the Scandinavian countries which are widely acknowledged as the most "gender equitable" countries in the world. The split in the carer's fields and the engineering fields is more extreme than most other countries around the world because people are free to choose what they'd like to do. Or is Pakistan a more woman-friendly country according to your line of thinking?

1. Choice is an illusion. 2. Let's save the gender equality paradox for another day. I'm sure the Guardian have some articles that I can paraphrase but I don't have the time to read them at the moment.

No ****. Would you be okay with a company stating they're only going to hire men as long as they were up front about it?

Sure. Because people are free to choose what they'd like to do. Nothing wrong with a company hiring employees aligned with their values as long as they're not breaking any laws.

Why does the plumbing of the person applying for the position matter? Either men and women are equal and there shouldn't be any discrimination between the two, or they're not equal and therefore it is fine to discriminate along the lines of those differences in the same way you'd prefer to hire someone with 20 years of experience over someone with 6 months experience.

If men and women are equal they should be treated as such. But some companies don't think they are, and have accordingly put measures in place to address this.

As wonderful as scholarships & support services are they're not going to undo decades of systematic discrimination or eradicate false gender stereotypes overnight.

You've really bought into and swallowed the rhetoric here. Why are you so gullible when it comes to supporting such clear bias?

Why are you so against equal opportunity?

I haven't swallowed anything by the way- I'm not convinced this particular measure is actually a good one.

 

[Cannon82]

Toump Ass - I have to hand it to you, those are some dense views you've shared. Full marks for the mental gymnastics required to believe in those contradictory and hypocritical musings. You say you haven't swallowed any rhetoric, yet you're perfectly happy to treat people as representatives of a demographic rather than as individuals? You know, judge people on certain traits related to gender and ethnicity rather than merit? If you haven't swallowed any crazy pills than you've successfully developed yourself into a solid little SJW all on your onesie. Lets have a look at few of your key points based on some of the ****ed up things you've said and I'll throw in a few questions to boot.

1. It is okay to discriminate against certain people as long as you are comfortable with the reasons for that discrimination. So apparently you think its justified to discriminate against men today because women 50 years ago may not have had the opportunities that some men had at the time. That is completely *ed. If someone was wronged 50 years ago, how does giving a completely different person a leg up today help that person? It doesn't. So you're taking an assumed wrong from the past and discriminating against someone today on the basis that this somehow "evens things out", even though all you're doing is wronging two people. The only way this is OK in your head is if you treat someone as a member of a certain demographic rather than an individual, so therefore things are somehow square. Congratulations, you're ****ed in the head if you think that's justified.
2. You think women are better and more capable, yet you don't seem to think that's a sexist view to hold. In what ways are they better? How is this "fact"? If they're better, why do they need all manner of help and assistance to do the same things men are expected to do on their own? Ahhh, yes, the big bad men are discriminating and its all about the "Old Boys Club", even though its been shown that women have an in-group bias and that men don't exhibit the same bias. As you've said, how else do we reach this point where men are happily implementing laws / policies that discriminate in favour of women? Yet they're also so sexist and mean and keeping women out of all these occupations they don't want to go in to.
3. If you believe in #1 and #2 as you clearly do, why don't you quit your job and give a smarter and more capable woman the chance to shine? Obviously, being a man, you're probably only doing a barely tolerable job that a woman could do much better so why don't you practice what you preach and step aside? Or is it only other people that should have to suffer discrimination?
4. Similarly, do you have children? If so, can we presume you'll send all your boys to mediocre schools and give them no assistance whatsoever while you focus on the education and development of your girls? After all, you shouldn't be promulgating the same patriarchal system that has advantaged men for thousands of years. If you believe in identity politics, than maybe its more a case of sending all your kids to the worst schools possible so that other more unfortunate demographics can have a chance at the opportunities your kids will likely have? Again, will your practice what you preach or are you and your family exempt from your own beliefs?
5. You clearly don't seem to understand some basic definitions here. Equal Opportunity means that for a given job, anyone can apply for that job. So Bob, Sally, Achmed, Wing, trans Phil, Disabled Joe and Gay Susan can all apply for the position and be judged on merit and capability to do that job. What you're looking for is Equality of Outcome, which espouses that every profession should be a reflection of society, so therefore if society is 50% women and a profession is not 50% women, then ergo there must be discrimination because we don't have equality of outcome! This is a logical fallacy based on incorrect assumptions that everyone wants to do the same things. Hint: they don't, as I pointed with the Scandinavian countries and their even wider splits in traditional male / female fields.

Your post above is a complete mess. If you weren't such a clearly stubborn and stupid campaigner it might be worth trying to unravel it. For example, you talk about "choice being an illusion" and a sentence later talk about "people being free to choose what they want to do" when it comes to discriminating against men. Amazingly convenient switch for you to flick. Any danger of some consistency in your thought processes?

As for only hiring certain types of people, that's fine until your company reaches a size of 20 people or more, and then that company is beholden to anti-discrimination laws. A little surprised you don't know we have such a thing. Did you not realize they exist?

Women got the right to vote in this country two years after the men, and they didn't even have to fight in any wars to get it. Talk about sexist, huh?

I hope you try to examine your own assumptions and reasoning here. I don't think you will, but perhaps one day when you're a little wiser you might realize how ridiculous what you've just said is. Probably not, though.

 

[Toump Ass]

Thanks for your compliments Cannon82

I will answer your questions as they're proffered:

You say you haven't swallowed any rhetoric, yet you're perfectly happy to treat people as representatives of a demographic rather than as individuals?

Yes I've said lots of things and you seem to have taken all of them at face value, even the exaggerated comments which I assumed would be self-evident... I was wrong. But let's carry on all the same.

If someone was wronged 50 years ago, how does giving a completely different person a leg up today help that person? It doesn't.

You've answered your own question here. We cannot change history and correct previous mistakes, but looking at this on an individual level obviously isn't what these measures are put in place for.

You think women are better and more capable, yet you don't seem to think that's a sexist view to hold. In what ways are they better? How is this "fact"?

Men and women are not the same and acknowledging this difference is not sexist.

IMO women are better because they are more intelligent, empathetic, and nicer to look at.

I claim this as fact because in the context of what were were talking about- STEM subjects- women perform better.

If they're better, why do they need all manner of help and assistance to do the same things men are expected to do on their own? Ahhh, yes, the big bad men are discriminating and its all about the "Old Boys Club", even though its been shown that women have an in-group bias and that men don't exhibit the same bias.

Strange you're now relying on- I assume- studies that show that men don't exhibit the same bias as women do, given you previously said that studies were unreliable because of the pre-meditated outcomes..?

Anyway... we've been through this bit already.

If you believe in #1 and #2 as you clearly do, why don't you quit your job and give a smarter and more capable woman the chance to shine? Obviously, being a man, you're probably only doing a barely tolerable job that a woman could do much better so why don't you practice what you preach and step aside? Or is it only other people that should have to suffer discrimination?

******* lol, I haven't worked a real job in years. I wouldn't even know what one looked like.

(Edit: You know now that you mention it... my conscience is pretty clean on this one.)

You clearly don't seem to understand some basic definitions here. Equal Opportunity means that for a given job, anyone can apply for that job. So Bob, Sally, Achmed, Wing, ****** Phil, Disabled Joe and Gay Susan can all apply for the position and be judged on merit and capability to do that job. What you're looking for is Equality of Outcome, which espouses that every profession should be a reflection of society, so therefore if society is 50% women and a profession is not 50% women, then ergo there must be discrimination because we don't have equality of outcome! This is a logical fallacy based on incorrect assumptions that everyone wants to do the same things. Hint: they don't, as I pointed with the Scandinavian countries and their even wider splits in traditional male / female fields.

Whoops my bad. Sorry man. Didn't mean to say "equal opportunity". What I meant to say was: why do you hate women?

Your post above is a complete mess. If you weren't such a clearly stubborn and stupid campaigner it might be worth trying to unravel it. For example, you talk about "choice being an illusion" and a sentence later talk about "people being free to choose what they want to do" when it comes to discriminating against men. Amazingly convenient switch for you to flick. Any danger of some consistency in your thought processes?

Where would the fun be in that? I copy and pasted that bit about freedom of choice from you by the way...my bad

As for only hiring certain types of people, that's fine until your company reaches a size of 20 people or more, and then that company is beholden to anti-discrimination laws. A little surprised you don't know we have such a thing. Did you not realize they exist?

Sorry I forgot what we were talking about.

Oh that's right, apparently some employer somewhere was discriminating against people. But if there's laws in place to stop that... what's the problem?

 

[Cannon82]

Ah, exaggerated comments now, righto. You was being ironic!! Heavens to Betsy!

You've answered your own question here. We cannot change history and correct previous mistakes, but looking at this on an individual level obviously isn't what these measures are put in place for.

Yes, these measures are put in place to discriminate against people. Congratulations on being a supportive Useful Idiot.

******* lol, I haven't worked a real job in years. I wouldn't even know what one looked like.

And? I'm sure there's a woman out there somewhere who'd like to do whatever it is you do. Quit your job and give her a chance. Just think of how much better she'd be at it.

Whoops my bad. Sorry man. Didn't mean to say "equal opportunity". What I meant to say was: why do you hate women?

Why do you think women are so incompetent they need help and reduced competition to do what men can do?

Where would the fun be in that? I copy and pasted that bit about freedom of choice from you by the way...my bad

Yes, it'd be the contrast between the two statements that is the issue.

Oh that's right, apparently some employer somewhere was discriminating against people. But if there's laws in place to stop that... what's the problem?

Because they're looking to change the laws. For example, there's now a quota system in place for women at company board level. They brought that one in recently. Did they also stipulate a corresponding quota level for men? No. Stupid people like you clearly have their uses when it comes to getting support for discriminatory law changes.

Anyway, if you're going to run with trying to be facetious and exaggerating idiotic comments, lets stop.

 

[Toump Ass]

Anyway, if you're going to run with trying to be facetious and exaggerating idiotic comments, lets stop.

Sure. Out of interest though, which bit of:

admirable but maybe not entirely justified.

It definitely could perpetuate the stereotype that women aren't as capable. And I imagine it would cause a fair bit of anger if hard-working colleagues were locked out of a job they really wanted

Once again: admirable in intention but maybe not the best solution

I'm not convinced this particular measure is actually a good one.

... made you think that I that I thought this was a good idea?

I'm sure there's a woman out there somewhere who'd like to do whatever it is you do. Quit your job and give her a chance.

Done that before, will definitely do it again.

 

[Cannon82]

... made you think that I that I thought this was a good idea?

Perhaps your many other daft comments? If you want to flip flop between "exaggeration" / "serious" and "women are amazeballs" / "discrimination is bad", don't be surprised if whatever message you're trying to convey misses the mark.

 

[Toump Ass]

And here I was thinking I was posting in the "annoying conversations with unlikable people" thread.

Whoops!

 

[Johnny Karate]

Maybe I will eventually get around to responding to some of the long-winded comments in the other threads, so I've made a separate thread here for now.

On topic: recent case of "positive" discrimination

Do you think this is admirable or justified? If so, why are you mentally deficient?

Salc0 Tulip Toump Ass

I’ll bite. The use of quotas through positive discrimination/affirmative action is highly controversial.

I can see how in certain situations using affirmative action to break up a monoculture for the longer term benefit of an organisation could work.

However, in this article, Professor Hyphenated-Name hasn’t justified it beyond arguing: because men.

 

[Cannon82]

I’ll bite. The use of quotas through positive discrimination/affirmative action is highly controversial.

Really not as controversial as it should be. Restricting the applicable pool of candidates for a position is highly likely to result in a weaker candidate being selected for that position. Strange when someone's ability to do the job they're being hired for becomes a sidenote in the hiring process.

I can see how in certain situations using affirmative action to break up a monoculture for the longer term benefit of an organisation could work.

I can get behind diversity of thought and experience being good for an organisation, but diversity as an end to itself is shallow and pointless. The only way someone can look at an organisation populated by predominantly white males and describe it as a "monoculture" is if they assume all white men are the same. I've heard a few people push this idea that diverse teams are stronger teams, not realizing that the meaning of diversity in this case doesn't mean ethnicity, gender, etc but actual diversity of skills, experience and thought processes. Its like when certain people say we should be giving people of certain ethnicity, gender, etc special privileges because they're worse off than the average person in terms of income, education, opportunities, etc. If that was the case, why not target poor people and give them additional privileges rather than discriminating along arbitrary lines such as gender or ethnicity?