Jabanga

7 ms·

1.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>There is no reason to expect that their subset of the population should conform to a general population skew. Absurd. Differences in the general population will translate into differences in the number of men that pursue CS and related
2.
by Jabanga 9y ago
There is nothing to debate against, unfortunately. If I'm being repetitive, it's because the justifications for the firing are so utterly baseless. Also, if the upvote/downvote ratio is any indication, many people appreciate
3.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population? With all due respect, this is an absurd question. Statistical differences between the gende
4.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The EPI is heavily funded by labour unions which have a major stake in the continued acceptance of central tenets of Marxist/postmodernist ideology, like the existence of race/gender/class based social dominance hierarchy and
5.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>Were it offered merely as a factor which explained some subset of the gender imbalances in STEM, that would be more reasonable. Yes that is a more accurate construction. For the sake of expedience I wasn't this precise, and left it
6.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The article that is linked here is written by a PhD in sexual neuroscience, and defends the claims made in the memo as scientifically valid. Instead of responding to the memo, and proving the assertions contained in it wrong, Google's
7.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. Then you're choosing to not be constructive. Sexism and racism are not constructive, and they are hurtful to innocent people.
8.
by Jabanga 9y ago
They could very plausibly explain the differences in the number of men who write software relative to women. The only explanation is absolutely not "systemic discrimination against women". I know it's trendy to defend femin
9.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things This doesn't negate my point. You're correct that I oversimplified: some STEM fields are indeed less 'biologically geared&#x27
10.
by Jabanga 9y ago
I did not say that you're a "hateful, dogmatic, sexist racist". I said that postmodernism and feminism are. Very few people subscribe to all of the beliefs of a particular ideological and philosophical framework. But the tene
11.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Can you at least admit that your initial comment: that he "defends discrimination against women", is unfounded?
12.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attribut
13.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Postmodernists and feminists are generally very critical toward evolutionary psychology and hostile toward its scholars, so you're actually supporting my point.
14.
by Jabanga 9y ago
That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciol
15.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free ex
16.
by Jabanga 9y ago
This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to
17.
by Jabanga 9y ago
It does not defend discrimination against women. That's absurd. Quote me a single section that "defends discrimination against women". Incredibly harmful false accusations like this seem to be par for the course anytime someo
18.
by Jabanga 9y ago
This is just dogma. Making a scientifically supported argument against a position of postmodernists and feminists doesn't equal an "attack on women". The lack of intellect and integrity displayed by the attacks on the fired G
19.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Your cynical view is very old [1]: >Predictions that automation will make humans redundant have been made before, however, going back to the Industrial Revolution, when textile workers, most famously the Luddites, protested that machines
20.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>But without massive a public investment in psychological health, personalized treatment will remain a luxury solution for those who can afford it. Hopefully with greater automation, we can free up more people to become therapists.
21.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>Poverty in the US is overwhelmingly an issue for women and children. If we valued women so much, this travesty should not be true. This is incorrect. 14% of women are under the poverty line, to 10% of men. That's not "overwhel
22.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The disruptive behavior should be dealt with directly, in a manner that's agnostic to whether the person staying is a short term tenant, a long-term tenant, or a nonpaying guest of the owner, not by discriminating against short term te
23.
by Jabanga 9y ago
If you appreciate Airbnb when out of your own city but oppose it when it's in your city, then your opposition is not grounded in an objective analysis of what is in the general public's interest, and should therefore be dismissed
24.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>You're saying that differences in extrinsic incentives (tennant vs. resident) should be treated the same as biological differences when discriminating between good and bad neighbors. Are you kidding? Legal discrimination based on i
25.
by Jabanga 9y ago
Turning them into hotels reduces short term rental rates. If long term rental rates are extremely high, short term rental rates will be as well.
26.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The same could apply to gender, race, age, and occupation groups. I don't think it's good policy to create laws based on generalisations.
27.
by Jabanga 9y ago
>Put me in the camp that's very anti-AirBnB as a resident who doesn't want where I lived turned into a hotel. I live in NYC. You're simply demonstrating NIMBYism. You get to stay in one of the most geographically desirable
28.
by Jabanga 9y ago
The discussion here reminds me of this: "We have an ingrained anti-profit bias that blinds us to the social benefits of free markets" https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/08/04/we-have-an-ingrained-an...
29.
by Jabanga 9y ago
I love how "austerity" is the catch all cause of all social problems, despite social welfare spending as a share of GDP massively increasing in the UK over the last 50 years.
30.
by Jabanga 9y ago
This is a self-correcting problem. Traders who fall for fake walls lose their capital, and thus influence on the price, to those who do not. The feedback loops and incentives of the market cause it to evolve toward a more price-stable confi

More ›