627 karma · joined July 4, 2018
We can legally drink before the age of 21 because we are able to control ourselves.
We can have sex between 14 and 16 years, because we are able to control ourselves.
We don't shoot other people in school when we are upset, because we are able to control ourselves.
Tell me more about your strength...
Which is slightly different.
I had the same conversation trying to explain that in Italian there are "male" things that have "female" names and vice versa.
For example "car" (automobile in Italian) or bulldozer (ruspa in Italian) are feminine nouns.
If you lookup those words in an Italian dictionary you'll find
ruspa
[rù-spa] s.f.
We don't associate the fact the bulldozer has a feminine name with the notion that women are bulldozers.
At least, I don't!
That's understandable.
He supported an alternative theory.
But he was already 50 years years old when he published his first essay on HIV, and over 60 when he started the campaign against HIV/AIDS correlation.
And most of his theories have been disproved by following studies, his first publication on the subject is date 1987, Montagnier discovered HIV in 1986 and it was taken for granted as a fact years later.
The best moments of Duesberg career had already gone (like 30 years before).
Montagnier himself late in his life, at the age of 77, gave a speech that basically supported the validity of homeopathy.
I bet it's more an aging related problem than a credibility problem.
BTW Duesberg was wrong on HIV but not on the other topics he studied.
I have no reason of doubting your warnings on Peterson, but it may be possible, as in the Duesberg and Montagnier cases that he might be wrong on something and right on something else.
Exactly.
And there is no amount of social construct that can change this "opportunism".
Either we stop doing and publishing researches on social behavior or we have to assume that it will be distorted and used by malevolent actors or by sheer ignorance.
> and AFAIK sex doesn't influence these
I agree, the only exception I could see is testosterone.
Testosterone, among its other properties, is linked to risk taking behaviour, and risk taking behaviour, apart being of course dangerous, is a way to improve faster.
Yep, the right to be forgotten (or to oblivion) predates GDPR.
> The implications of what's been said here will on some level impact how EU law will apply to countries outside of the EU.
Not really, each country still decide by itself.
> Remember, GDPR was supposed to apply globally
It is not about GDPR.
The ruling on one side talks about "versions".
Facebook has only one version of its social network, while Google has been known of running different versions of their search engine.
For example: Google China is a subsidiary of Google
The other side of the ruling is that EU court just said that Europe could not impose the right to be forgotten on countries that did not recognize the law, which is fairly obvious.
USA cannot enforce patents on countries that do not recognize them.
They also feared - disproportionally given the status of things - that allowing it globally would mean that if North Korea do the same (which they already do BTW) that could lead to state censorship, as if it wasn't already a reality.
GDPR is more about the ownership of personal data, the right to data portability, for example, still makes perfect sense and it's not put in danger by this ruling.
The point is sex differences exist and are framed in a way that culture or nature have really no meaning anymore.
They are both hard to change and even if we change them in a meaningful way, we can't be sure it will fix what we think needs fixing.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
> yet also ensure that girls and women will not avoid mathematics more than boys and men due to mathematics anxiety. Policies must take into consideration that sex differences in career choices are not a simple function of gender equality and equal opportunities; and that, paradoxically, other factors (e.g., sex differences in occupational interests [74–76] and sex differences in other skills [9, 81, 82]) emerge in highly developed, gender-equal countries that might disproportionately affect girls’ mathematics anxiety and participation in STEM.
It doesn't mean of course that one sex is intrinsically better than the other, but the fact that we as individuals have not really existed for thousands of years and our choices in life have always been a cat and mouse game between rules of society and biological instincts, makes the distinction harder to make.
Our DNA tells us what we are biologically, but that's only the bootstrap process, what we become is mostly about the experiences we live and even in the flattest possible ideal society, where every choice is possible, we will all live different experiences and become different individuals.
And we would not see a perfect random distribution of choices, but very clear patterns or clusters, much more clear than they are now.
EDIT: sorry for being verbose.
Another example I can make is universal welfare state in Italy.
It was supposed to help families raise kids with less effort than the previous generations.
The unwanted (I hope) effect has been that it shaped a society of full time men workers and part-time or no-working women.
Because one way or another kids needed to be with their moms more than with their dads, we're talking about 60s in Italy here and a salary or a salary and half were enough. More money meant bigger dreams, moving to the city, in shiny new houses, but away from families that had been the buffer that allowed women to go to work while grandparents took care of kids.
It meant hiring a nanny, but why hire a nanny that costed as much as the woman's salary, when she could stay home, save on money and raise the kids?
This way men monopolized the higher paid jobs and women dominated education and services, because it was more flexible on hours.
It was good nonetheless, my parents couldn't have raised two kids without the free nursery school that the public hospital offered to their employees (having to kids when you work 12 hours night shifts is not really possible without help), but that's how a system created to support natality and to make it possible for women to go to work, have become the disaster of inequalities that it is now.
it is controversial only if you assume that
- we can control sex differences more than hormonal differences (in fact it's quite the opposite)
- cultural differences are more controllable than biological differences (same as above)
it doesn't matter how you frame it, the study shows a clear tendency, we can discuss the implications or the correctness of the study, methodology and title
For the first a functioning brain it's enough, for the rest we are subject to burden of the proof.
I've read this[1] yesterday on a complete unrelated topic, and I must say that "I don't buy" it's another form of not understanding statistics.
Biology is what it is and controls major aspects of our lives.
If you can be stronger of some of the biological instincts, good, but statistically biology always wins.
We can say for example that "women prefer laudanum, men prefer opium and pronstitues" is 100% a social construction.
"Women are better at social activities while men are better at competitive activities" much less so.
> Like most psychologists who study personality, Peterson believes there are five core personality traits—extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism—and that these traits are universal across most cultures. The taxonomy is also gendered. For example, women tend to be more agreeable than men. The traits have both biological and cultural origins and, as Peterson is fond of saying, the biological factors maximize in places—like Scandinavia—that have strenuously tried to flatten out the cultural differences. Biology is, therefore, in a sense, destiny, no matter how much people may want to deny it. To his mind, arguing that gender is a social construct or a kind of performance or—as the Ontario Human Rights Code says—an individual’s subjective experience is just wrong. “It’s not an alternative hypothesis,” Peterson says. “It’s an incorrect hypothesis.
-- Jordan Bernt Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto.
[1] https://torontolife.com/city/u-t-professor-sparked-vicious-b...
Who, exactly?
> -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office. > -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
Sooooo, your entire analysis is based on legends circulating since the 90s about a weird man who was even told to be scared by plants?
For reference, Thomas Lord, creator of GNU arch (think about Git before Git), who worked for FSF for a long time said
One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior.
p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away **OF COURSE** and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view.
Can you tell an inside joke when you see one?
p.s. all of us have being young and done some innocent stupid shit, the kinds young people do, like having stupid signs on the door. It doesn't make any of us a criminal.
If for "worked out fine" you intend "self-destructed", yeah, it did.
UK is dead!
Ireland will stay in EU, Scotland will vote to stay in EU, even London is looking for a way to stay in EU, what's left?
He left on his own, at the top of his career, while he was still admired as "the godfather of hipsterism"
He turned from hipster god to far right extremist
And that's more or less what happens to everyone thinking to be "edgy" and "modern" and "free" when they start to understand they have power over people's life.
They become shitty persons.
Stallman never became one, because he was always unpopular, boring, pedantic, never cared for power or money or being socially acceptable and that's why he's been a good person after all.
> Can I get a link or reference for this? It is a big fact...
If you write a piece titled "remove Stallman and all the other toxic people" and you build weapons, I understand better why you build them and what you really meant by "remove".
thanks for trying
I don't care about being being popular.
And I don't even care of being judged by internet nobodys, I'm over 40, I've grown some skin for teenager's shitty destructive behaviour.
I care about not covering facts.
She'll be paying for what she did in the future.
That's for sure, I would never trust at my job someone who leaks information like some sort of enemy spy.
Stallman has a reputation, she doesn't.
Alan Turing was incarcerated for being gay, after all he did for his country.
At least Stallman roams free (for now).
But I've canceled my yearly donation to FSF and I encourage everyone I know to do the same.
It was (physically) a drop in the ocean to help them doing the right thing, not what is popular at the moment.
And I did it despite disagreeing with Stallman on different points, I knew it was for a good cause, now I don't care if they burn in hell, they're just like Google or Apple to me.
If they can't defend their most honorable member, they can't defend anybody.
If they prefer to be on the side of those building killing machines, it's their right.
But they've become useless.
If they had some self respect, they would shutdown the FSF for good.
> Any effort expended on her could have been expended on dispelled one of the falsehoods being propagated about rms.
I did it on several occasions.
And I'll keep doing it.
The two things are not at odds, I can do both.
She's really building weapons for the US department of defense.
I'm not doing anything, just doubting of her qualities as a spoke person of a movement that targeted RMS for no reason other than ignorance (taking for granted that there isn't anything else behind it)
If we can doubt Stallman as a leader, we can as well doubt Selam G.
And I'm saying it because she put herself there, nobody pressed her to write a hit piece titled "Remove Stallman and every other toxic person", she spoke as a movement leader, a toxic one if you ask me.
Remove is not a word I would ever use in regard to other people.
> The various publications should have checked their facts
That's why I think that she chose Vice for a reason, and not by coincidence.
I guess, but I can't prove it, that she was sure they would have listened and published the whole thing without checking, and even if they did, they would have published it anyway as it is.
It's too juicy.
I'm not trying to break her down, just exposing facts.
It is what it is, I haven't invented anything here.
People need to have all the informations available to make their own opinions.
Talking about dicks is inappropriate, but if you are an urologist speaking with other urolgy students, it makes perfect sense.
Stallman was writing to other students about the correct representation of the Minsky situation, because they were using Minsky's name in an inappropriate way to protest against MIT-Epstein case. (Unless you think that accusing a dead person without proof is alright)
His entire life has been devoted to finding the precise combinations of words to express what he wanted to say, in the most exact possible manner.
Can you blame him for doing what he did best, among his peers?
I blame the weapon builder who felt triggered and accused him of something he did not do.
> you can think about how women are just pieces of meat all you like
Pathetic...
Nobody ever said that.
You're embarrassing yourself.
https://archive.is/https://twitter.com/thomas_lord/status/11...
In Italy you can't be fired for your opinions.
Never!
That's not really feminist, isn't it?
> • Co-Principle Investigator for a U.S. Department of Defense SBIR Phase II research contract, prototyping autonomous ground vehicle (AGV) with collection system.
this never happened though.
According not to me, but to Thomas Lord (if you don't know who he is, go and check)
> One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior.
And it says a lot about the amount of fabrication going around.
Murder is a crime.
Where is the crime here?
It is ok to let go a "fuck you" if that persons did good before.
[citation needed]
I'm very sympathetic with people (over)reacting to what Stallman said and did.
I'm from a family where my parents and most of my uncles worked in healthcare.
Specifically my dad worked in oncology and my mom in infectiuos diseases.
I've seen patient's relatives panic because of some blood (after a very dangerous surgery) or complaining to the management because some other patient had sever pain and they could not stand them crying.
People are tribal, they usually act as a tribe, if not educated differently or introduced to things they do not know.
Of course I don't have to explain than when some of my friends needed to go to an hospital I was always regarded as the unemphatetic for saying things like "some blood is normal at this stage" or "the pain is gonna go away soon, don't worry" or "well, they amputated that man's leg, I bet I would be crying too. You can't complain about that" (this one really happened to me, when I had surgery to remove the saphenous vein, one of my parents friend came over to visit and asked me "why your parents keep you here with that man crying all the time?", I must specify that in Italy healthcare is mainly public, it was even more 25 years ago, you don't find the private hotel like rooms, and it worked much better than today, but that's another story).
SJWs are the same: they only think about their group, their needs, their right words, without stopping to think for a moment that Stallman started 40 years ago and that for 40 years he resisted, you don't just throw him under the bus because he said something you don't like because you were never exposed to that kind of thinking.
But Stallman would have defended their right to speak their minds if the role were reversed.
And that's why I'm sympathetic with them because they don't even understand the damage they made to themselves.
TL;DR;
We should work together engaging in what makes us similar more than what makes us different.
That's what Stallman did.
Exactly 80 years ago Sigmund Freud died.
> The narcissism of small differences (German: der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen) is the thesis that communities with adjoining territories and close relationships are especially likely to engage in feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation. The term was coined by Sigmund Freud in 1917, based on the earlier work of British anthropologist Ernest Crawley. In language differing only slightly from current psychoanalytic terminology, Crawley declared that each individual is separated from others by a taboo of personal isolation, a narcissism of minor differences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_difference...
He's been under constant attack for the past 40 years.
Nobody wants to be friend with the smart friend who's also unpopular.
And that's what he failed, he trusted people would be decent.
They are not.
Who are you exactly to think you can decide what is - without doubt - "entirely inappropriate behaviour"?
are you in charge of the thought police?
As usual, not trying to be prejudicial here, it happened in the U.S. where different 501(c)(3) formed to attract donation capital, but that actually have been an enemy of large part of the FSF community.
There can't be one strong FSF they want many small feuds, it's like greenwashing, open washing is happening, which, BTW, "misses the point of free software".
Look at what happened to Eben Moglen, a person that nobody can describe as harsh, impolite, unempathetic, creepy or whatever BS they are throwing now at RMS.
And still in 2017 he was declared "no longer a friend of the free software community" by mjg59.
Why?
Because Moglen expressed his lawyer opinion in a way that Garret did not like.
Garret works at Google, Moglen still offers pro bono legal representation at the Software Freedom Law Center, which he founded.
It's not hard to take parts for me.