Tohhou

Are you serious? I linked to TIA because they showcase the crazies. I'm not criticizing TIA, but linking to them because they very plainly detail what I was talking about in earlier posts.

For example, this pertinent thread: http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/comments/1u0tmy/appar...

Individuals have agendas and are attacking people due to their ideology. Look at the thread you are in. PG was attacked by people over something he never said. They didn't do it for no reason, they did it because they saw a chance to draw blood for their twisted cause. Where's the wild conspiracy again? It's not a conspiracy. It's a group of very public, transparent, active, and vocal people who are creating divisive rifts in the tech world. They are post modernists who believe in patriarchy theory and think the only way that they can destroy all of the social constructs is by forcefully enforcing public punishment for thought-crimes. Or something. It gets kind of silly.

Consider the two previous needlessly dramatic tragedies caused by the SJWs:

Donglegate - humor is problematic, and worth getting a guy fired over.

Nodegate - empathy doesn't extend to having empathy over cultural differences of people who do not understand why people would care about pronouns, which drove off one of the top contributors.

There will for sure be more to come!

>Well-reasoned and supported arguments are valued here, not baseless and fragmented conspiracy theories.

My argument is that SJWs are a terrible blight on tech as well as everywhere else. They hurt everyone and help no one. If you disagree with something I stated then tell me and I'll show you examples of people who hold that belief, and actively champion it in the tech world. Unless that's not what you are after. In which case what you do think my thesis is?

>E.g. Aliens are controlling politics! Proof: http://reddit.com/r/ufos

Yeah, dude, totally all of the people linked to and discussed in http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction are fake! I didn't link to it to show that there are examples of people who believe the things I listed on. Come on who would believe people were so crazy.

Are you a newbie to the Internet? Been living under a rock? What do you want me to do cite each example with what Social Justice Warriors say they want?

Yeah, totes there are no people like this, and the attack on PG was not agenda fueled.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction

The people who attacked PG have an agenda:

* Publicly shame as many top males for anything possible to make room for women - assume the worst and don't try to resolve possible misunderstanding privately, but instead immediately engage in public smear campaigns. The little shitlord nerds don't deserve anything.

* Smashing the patriarchy requires getting men out of positions of power, because they didn't earn any of it, and so the best, most capable men must be pushed out. Meritocracies create inequality, and so are evil. Women are only not in tech because of deliberate, institutionalized sexism. There is no other reason. Not because more men were shut-in nerds ostracized by society who were hungry for something interesting to work on. That's not it at all. There is no reason for men to compete with each other for well paying jobs other than them being sexist jerks.

* Remove all male identity, because if men don't exist then women can feel better about not doing things they don't want to. All gendered words must be wiped clean, because you don't know who could be reading your own words even in an industry mostly built, maintained, and ran by men. Any word with "man" must be changed to "person" and if there are none available then invent new words, because men do not deserve identity (because of their male privilege). Why are men more interested in getting into tech on their own? Obviously it's the patriarchy which pushes men into challenging STEM jobs, and women into psychology. If there were no gendered words in tech then women would stop going into psychology so much and instead get into STEM

* Make places where men can talk openly safe for women's feelings, because that's the only reason women are not in tech. This means no fun allowed, no jokes allowed. If there are mostly men in a group then it's obviously anti-women, uninviting to women, and most likely a bunch of women hating frat boys. Humor is problematic. Brave white knights (people who defend some by attacking (being bullies toward) others at all costs by default when they do not even understand what is going on (see: people attacking PG on twitter)) treat women as children without agency, which means creating Codes of Conduct which hilariously favor women, and allow women to get any male kicked out for any reason if they feel like making something up, which will totally make more guys want to associate with women at groups and not distance themselves even more.

* Make the good men who want to see equality, would be very happy if more women were in tech to walk on eggshells, or not even say anything, because they are afraid if they ask questions (if you practice the Socratic method then you are a sexist pig) or think things through logically (feels > facts; Social Justice Warrior Misandrist theory is 100% correct and if you disagree you're a misogynist) they will be attacked, publicly misquoted, and have their character assassinated.

* If any man tries to help feminist issues he is really just trying to put the spotlight on himself. He should STFU and listen, because he's a privileged, cis, white male, and he knows nothing. He's not allowed to ask questions either. He can google, and it's not anyone's job to educate him.

Not hyperbole. I have talked with serious people who gleefully hold these sickening views.

There are reddit admins who poison reddit ads, because they can freely place ads on subreddits without cost. It's annoying.

The reddit ads system could be far better and without the corruption. It does cost more and is less effective than Facebook ads even for very specific subreddits, and it costs a ton more than it's worth even when there is no one else buying ad space in a subreddit.

Correct me if I'm wrong if this has changed.

They are also one of the biggest sites on the net with massive passive traffic. It's like saying every game can have the success of Minecraft.

Yeah, I blame people who support nanny states for children who are afraid of thinking. These people think children are some fragile things which are incapable of thinking.

I've met kids who were raised as people instead of as sub-human property. They are not damaged. They can make solid choices. They know what's real and what's not, and fiction doesn't hurt them no more than it does any adult. Children are hungry for knowledge, and when gained it is exactly what makes people more resilient against what you fear.

On topic, CoD is not made for children. It's made for adults. But if a child was exposed to it and they understood it was all pretend do you think they would be in any way damaged? If they understood that in reality it's not okay to shoot people that playing a game would make them want to shoot people in the real world? Would they think it was okay to shoot Russians? That the US needs a larger army?

I grew up in a highly religious family and was censored from basically every media in fear of the "crap" turning me toward satan. Which was everything, and it makes me roll my eyes now what they thought would turn me away from their god. This is why I hold so much disdain for people who are so worried about kids being exposed to crap. Let the kids decide if it's crap or not. Talk with them about why they like it or not. If something concerns you about what they are interested in, talk with them to make sure they understand what is and isn't real, what is acceptable in the real world and what isn't. If they know what's real and what isn't why should they fear? Why should they be damaged in any way?

[Insert popular thing here] might be just a [thing], but its underlying message is becoming more and more problematic.

/r/conspiracy is leaking into HN /r/conspiratard would like a word with many here.

Not just any but the hyperbole strawman.

If children were playing CoD I'd blame the parents, and not the developer, who is clearly not engaging in a brainwashing conspiracy to get kids to think things.

> they do not consume like we do

They are smarter than you think. Some play dumb because people except them to be dumb, but try talking to a kid who isn't oppressed by people who think they can't engage with media actively.

>I think we should shame the executives responsible out of the industry and set the developers right or not work with them.

In other words, you want to encourage censorship for things you don't like.

"It's very clear that every movie you watch is driving a certain message. Also every book. None of that is art. You are so simple minded that these medias can tell you what to think just by existing and without you being able to make up your own mind. Let's ban entertainment that doesn't fall in line with our ideological tow."

>donations >make money

Hahahaha.

Grammar is how an idea is communicated. If a person has an identity they want to share then the pronouns they use communicate their identity, but if they use an uncommonly used pronoun then their identity is not understood, not communicated, and if gender neutral pronouns are used then no identity is communicated, or it's just completely confusing as is the case with using xer. I'm fine with people inventing identities outside of the binary, I'm fine with cultures having outliers to the natural occurring roles the constraints of reality offer, because all cultures and languages developed in different environments with different forces pushing and pulling. What bothers me is the white washing of the binary male/female him/her in an attempt to represent everyone when people invent their own identities which did not occur naturally as a consequence of environment. If a culture has some instances where definite articles are sometimes out of what is naturally expected from the basic grammar then that's cool, but it's still not the norm. You mention because they are exceptions not because they are everywhere.

>, evidenced by how the ideas of “masculine” and “feminine” vary between and even within societies

I did say that they did vary in an earlier comment, but they still follow the biological binary. They are a product of biology. I'm talking from experience of being around different cultures and I have never been in one where men are not generally male and women are not generally female. The same gender roles also still exist, because the dimorphic nature of humans make different behaviors more advantageous for each sex to do.

I'm aware of things like XYY syndrome, but expression wise they are still male.

>third gender

Transpeople exist, yeah! Like in an earlier comment I also said that there is a third option in English the it, but transpeople don't like that word as far as I know because it has a history of being derogatory as is illustrated in the wikipedia page as people being seen as without gender. They are people with gender dysphoria, because they generally would have rather been born the other gender. For whatever reason, as they developed their hormones were not at the male/female ideals and so they expressed in different ways outside of the male/female ideal ranges, and their behavior expressed in ways not common within their natural sex, so they become outcasts being not really attractive or useful to either natural sex in traditional societies. I empathize with their suffering, but I still see it for what it is. There is no plethora of varying genders divorced from sex. There is a lot of made up stuff though with no basis in science. "Social science" isn't.

In English we do have a grammar with gender, and I know that there are generally assumptions about gender/sex which people want to change, and many I do not agree with. How far away is that from real human suffering? How serious should we really take a person who looks like a male within our culture and is offended with a person calls this person a him?

>It is such a different concept than classifying nouns.

Why reply at all to my original post then when the person I was replying to was talking about pronouns, and I was clearly using the word gender defined as an attribute of sex.

If you can make the world a better place with less human suffering then good luck. I see it all as being biologically informed and so useless to even bother with. This dialog is useless too. You've not given me any new information and I already have reflected on it all and I see it as another way. It's not worth either of our time to continue, so, good day to you, xer.

>It is also informed by sex, but that is only one influence.

Right, so it's not fair to say that gender != sex when gender is the grammatical expression of a sex within an environment's constraints.

>You are confusing grammatical gender with gender identity.

The grammar is the expression of masculine and feminine, which vary based on constraints, but still stick to the sexual binary. Going beyond that is special snowflake territory where people invent their own thing to be unique while expecting to be taken seriously. Complaining that people don't use your preferred pronoun is a perfect case for first world problems.

My original comment you replied to "There are human genders other than male and female? Scientific or imaginary?"

All else other than male (primary masculine) and female (primary feminine) are imaginary, and not based on biological reality. Those things do not merit being taken seriously no more than any religion or superstition. Male and female based sexes will always be re-expressed in very similar ways, as they have all over the world in varying civilizations, while others will never be the same. I'ts the same as religions or ideologies. It is complete fabrication of the mind. If people want to invent new identities fine, but white washing away him and her so that all of the other newly minted pronouns don't feel left out is ridiculous.

>Hi, I'm Caramelkh. I'm demisexual, polyromantic, fat positive genderqueer (neutrois, femme presenting), sexual assault survivor (7 times), native American, Muslim neuroatypical with OCD, cotard delusion, trimethylaminuria, social phobias, depression, post traumatic stress, anxiety issues and I can't walk very far. On my blog I will NOT tolerate any form of oppressive bullshit language and I will not hesitate to call you out on it. My preferred pronouns are ze/zy/zo/zum. After reading my about me section above, you still know nothing about me other than that the long list of labels means I get to have experienced nearly every type of kyriarchy oppression and so I can call people out on anything and say it triggers and offends me. If people get bored, I invent new oppressions. I'm triggered by the color teal.

Or better yet the new thing of people insisting to be called only by the pronoun brony.

Gender is the grammar layer above sex. Sex informs gender. Gender is not a purely social construct out of nowhere. In English, there is the ternary, but it is defined as without the male/female. People generally don't like being called it though. Even if they have a special snowflake prounoun such as xer which they prefer the rest of the world can't know this and so it is fair and reasonable to call them what they look like they most identify out of the binary. Or we can just stop using pronouns altogether, even in industries largely of men, because we wouldn't want to make it seem like women can't take part in them (even when there is nothing stopping them). I'd be fine with that. Men don't exist anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

There are human genders other than male and female? Scientific or imaginary?

Ah, an SRS poster.

In other words, never talk with people who self identify as ideologue extremists.

Psychologically speaking you are more likely to attempt to get results from a product the more you have invested to acquire it. You may bin games if their price is comparatively nothing in your daily budget, if you routinely buy designer clothing paying hundreds a garment you only wear once then a $50 game might be nothing, but if you paid $25,000 for a flight simulation setup you might use it more than once before throwing it in the trash because you can so easily next things.

Company A wants to hire another company to do things for them based on a contract. Company A hires company B, which is completely independent - naturally occurring due to demand, to do the work. Company A is highly profitable and only has high earners in pay. Company B is barely profitable and only has lower earners in pay. How does the law have any power over this situation?

You are telling me that that government would decide that an employee of another company is also your employee because they don't get paid as well as your company's average?

I agree that min/maxing is easily exploitation, but it's also what those companies see as necessary to compete, and it is what high relative fitness companies do to not fail. One company gets a competitive advantage from doing perfectly legal activities which can allow them to edge out their competition from the market. See: Walmart.

You just labeled yourself a child rape apologist by social justice warrior feminist standards.

Rich people do not need money. Money is the way they keep score in the game they play. Running a high level company is not trivial, and those who are willing and able to do the hard work are going to live where they can actually compete. The best performers are not watered down by simplistic idealism.

Require in the contract that you are not their only client, but lawyer it well. "We only work with contractors with a diverse set of clients as we believe that diversity promotes excellence."

Create buffer companies for those contractors to also work for indirectly for you if necessary. You might still have to pay some taxes, but you won't have the same problem as the Swiss salary cap is trying to prevent if it were implemented.

There will always be ways to exploit systems. You see it as exploitation, but those running the companies see it as necessary to compete.