Sunshine Coast University: Women Only Engineering Professorship - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 08:46:52 am
content: University of the Sunshine Coast bans men from applying for engineering associate professor role to 'promote equal opportunity' for womenThe University of the Sunshine Coast has banned men from applying for an engineering associate professor role, strictly limiting the position to "women only".https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-bans-men-from-applying-for-engineering-associate-professor-role-to-promote-equal-opportunity-for-women/news-story/dfcce2f59366c7f9ccf13d97aefad1fb?preview=truehttps://thenightly.com.au/politics/australia/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-bans-men-from-applying-for-engineering-associate-professor-role-c-17866091https://careers.usc.edu.au/associate-professor-mechanical-engineering

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 08:49:40 am
content: That's something that would be illegal in many countries (at least stated openly like this). How come this is allowed in Australia?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 08:52:22 am
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on February 28, 2025, 08:49:40 amI believe our "Equal Opportunity" laws ironically allow it.The University of Technology in Sydney lowered engineering entry scores for women, discussed on here at the time.https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/university-boosts-female-enrolments-in-male-dominated-subjects-after-lowering-atar-bar-20221010-p5bomw.html

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 09:21:36 am
content: It is not a problem for men these days.All you have to do is say you identify as a woman and job done.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 09:43:57 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 08:52:22 amYou have elections in what, 3 months? This is only going to alienate more people.Laws can change. Will they?

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:18:24 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 08:46:52 amI am surprised it is that crude.It is reasonable to require that the successful applicant should clearly and demonstrably have the experience relevant for the post. In this case that might mean a woman rather than a man. Such "subtle" differences between candidates could be determined at interview, thus avoiding that specific situation.IMHO it is right and proper to encourage minorities (whatever that means) to endeavour to move into non-traditional roles. I have no problem if there are two equally competent candidates and the minority candidate wins because they are a minority candidate. I have problems if they are less competent and win because they are a minority candidate.To people that complain that "too few women are in top jobs", I ask whether they are fighting against prejudice based on someone's genetic and chromosomal makeup. They have to answer yes, and agree with their objectives. I then note small people rarely have top jobs due to prejudice, and ask if that means they will join my fight for short people's equality. If they say no, then I point out their hypocrisy and ask why I should join their cause.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:40:09 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 10:18:24 amWhy?I don't see any moral reason to encourage certain groups of people to enter professions, where they're typically underrepresented.As long as there isn't any discrimination, other than that based on competence, then there is nothing to address. There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in.I also find it odd, how none of these activists are so keen on addressing the under representation of female refuse collectors, warehouse operatives, oil rig workers etc.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:47:43 am
content: did they not get the memo?reverse sexism is so 2022 most of us are so over this

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:50:45 am
content: Comes up regularly:https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-rethink-recruitment-for-men-in-primary-schools-66670

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:02:32 am
content: It would be just another of the reasons why in western countries there has been a bit of a lurch to the social right of where those countries currently sit.I think there certainly are sex prejudices in industries that have stopped women and men from taking up certain professions. You will notice though that most of the talk is all about high end white collar jobs. There is little talk of getting women into say off shore oil rig drilling or men into pre-school teaching.Though there has been a great increase in women getting into blue collar trade jobs which is good. I think those women are the real trail blazers as they would have to put up with a lot of crap to get on in a lot of those male dominated blue collar areas. These "power women" who do a law degree or some other sort of humanities degree, no they are not trail blazers. That is just easy basic stuff these days.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:05:50 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 28, 2025, 10:40:09 amYou've missed the point, and you've chosen to snip my point about it not being acceptable to prefer a less competent person.I presume you've never had children. If you had then you would realise that sometimes they need encouragement to do somethingthey never believed they could doand/ornever knew they would like.For my daughter, she was "a minority" for several of these:going to the bottom of the garden on her own, to put some leaves on the compost heap. (Wide-eyed "What me, all on my own?")going down a playground slidesliding down polished rocks on her backsideclimbing treesbackpacking around India in her early teens, not knowing where we would sleep that nightskiing ("Meh", until she had tried it)being a solo pilot years before she could drive a car on the road. (When I first mentioned flying gliders, her response was to shake her head and expel breath in a brrr. After her first winch launch, she was hooked)All those have proved invaluable to her (and me!), in ways neither of us imagined.QuoteI occasionally tease people with such things, and more. not my daughter, but those are the rocks polished by many generations of backsides. No idea how many people did it before they became polished!

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:19:12 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on February 28, 2025, 11:02:32 amI suspect and fear there is some validity in that.There is always a tendency to blame "someone else" for your own misfortunes - or worse where you are "the architect of your own misfortunes". Such attitudes should be rigorously challenged.

author: Ice-Tea
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:24:51 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 28, 2025, 10:40:09 amThere you go, you answered your own question ;-)

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:49:49 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 08:52:22 amSurely nothing says Equal Opportunity like banning people?

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:57:28 am
content: I thought this only happened in Victoria.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 12:02:02 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 10:18:24 amIMHO it is right and proper to ensure the minimum of obstacles to people pursuing whatever they are capable of, and interested in. The problem with "encouragement" is it quickly morphs into coercion. Quite a few women have gone through engineering degree programs because the encouragement was in the form of getting in with lower grades, or being given a scholarship they would not have otherwise got. Not entirely unlike a drug pedaller providing a free first dose. However, they either don't actually use that degree, or get an initial engineering job, find they don't like it, and run away. You'll find a lot more women engineering graduates in China and India than in most western countries. You'll find a lot more women one year out of university in China and India doing solid engineering work. You won't find many women five years out of university in solid engineering work, although you'll find quite a few have moved to sales and marketing in engineering companies. These women were sucked into a path they didn't enjoy, and moved on from as soon as they reasonably could.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 12:06:26 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 28, 2025, 10:40:09 amThat's just called advertising. You might not know you are interested in something until it's presented to you in a way you find appealing. You might get lucky with some people and spark an interest by making them think about it. Clueless kids looking for something do for college are the classic example.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 12:26:08 pm
content: Disturbing, but not surprising for a university.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 12:27:42 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 12:06:26 pmMerely "making X look appealing" is insufficient.It is beneficial to encourage people to believetheycould do X, thatordinary people like themselvescan do X, and that wearing your pants on top of your trousers is not a precondition.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 02:34:00 pm
content: I think what i noticed is that with how hard people bullshit about qualifications putting any kind of favor to anything just makes it totally crooked and non functional, PLEASE dont give someone MORE leverage.well and the job description is usually filled with fabrications too, possibly to detect fabrications:?:?

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 06:52:20 pm
content: Women aren't a minority, either in the general population or on university campus. If universities want to artificially promote women for aesthetic purposes then they shouldn't receive taxpayer funding.However that won't change as Dave mentioned it is explicitly written in the law that sex discrimination is wrong as long as it's aimed at men and benefits women*. I wish that were an oversimplification but it isn't. The government can grant exceptions where they think discrimination is OK.*in recent years, male women have thrown a bit of a wrench in that system.The next step in this game are the articles bemoaning the idea that women might then be viewed as less competent diversity hires if there's jobs specifically selecting them, women-only scholarships, and lowered entry standards for women.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 09:52:13 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 11:05:50 amI have just quoted the part of your post I had a question about.QuoteThat's the parent's job. Nothing to do with university.Quote from: Ice-Tea on February 28, 2025, 11:24:51 amHow have I answered my own question?There is a difference between not discriminating against people, based on characteristics other than merit and encouraging people into a certain job, because they have irrelevant characteristics.In this case it's taking it further: so-called positive discrimination or affirmative action, which is purely a socialist policy that will not do any good for anyone.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:03:35 pm
content: There is something to say for having a close to 50/50 mix of men and women on the workfloor. It makes for a much nicer atmosphere to work in. Too many men or too many women is just toxic and I can imagine people don't feel welcome in workplaces where one gender dominates.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:34:42 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 28, 2025, 10:40:09 amIts something to try, maybe it works out and we end up with some great female engineers, maybe it doesn't.There are plenty of professions using various techniques to target future members. It doesn't have to be a moral cause.I would agree that the end goal should definitely not be equal gender representation in all professions.QuoteThere is some level of discrimination, clearly, but that is not something easily nailed down and not worth discussing here.QuoteOf course they do:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/fort-mcmurray-women-in-oil-1.6372217

author: Gregg
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:34:48 pm
content: 60 years ago this would have been called “reverse discrimination” in a feeble virtue signaling attempt to reduce discrimination via even more discrimination.The words have been changed, but the concept persists.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 10:58:51 pm
content: Quote from: Gregg on February 28, 2025, 10:34:48 pmActually, 60 years ago it was not a lot different from now for hiring women engineers. You might find one serious application from a woman among a pile for hundreds of applicants for an engineering R&D job. When you find it, its such a rarity you show it to all the other managers. They will mostly be trying to find a way to fit her experience into one of their needs, however poor a fit she might me. "Oh, she's been doing RF for the past 5 years, and I need another digital engineer. I'll call her in for interview. There must be some way we can make her fit.". Apart from one or two cranky unpleasant men, I have never seen a male engineer NOT want to find a way to get a few women into their environment.The one key thing that has changed is HR now usually pre-screen candidates, and throw out most of the good ones.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:08:38 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on February 28, 2025, 09:52:13 pmIt seems I didn't make the parallels sufficiently clearly for you when I wrote "...sometimes they need encouragement to do something they never believed they could do and/or never knew they would like.", where "something" is either a home-based activity or a workplace-based activity.That's why your belief "There's no point in encouraging people into doing jobs they're typically not interested in. " is inadequate and insufficient for the objective.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:10:25 pm
content: biology is why you will never get 50/50 without forced mandates.different jobs will appeal to different genders on averagebecause a workplace that is Not just office space or a workfloor cannot be compared to a schoolyard or university campus.mixed-gender education vs single gender schoolsome suggest girls who attend single-sex schools are more confident in their abilitieswithout the distraction of boys. biological sexual tensions in a mixed-gender teenage space.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:38:58 pm
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 28, 2025, 11:10:25 pmI don't know how you want to fill out these jobs at 50/50 when university admissions were at 95/5. I'm not joking, that's how they were. And there was zero discrimination, the universities only could select candidates based on test scores. No admission letters, no racial profiles or selection based on genders. Just pure test results, and the high school students made a priority list where they want to apply. Guess what, they didn't want to become an EE.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 28, 2025, 11:50:22 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 12:27:42 pmThat's the psychology of advertising.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:01:40 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 28, 2025, 11:10:25 pmIt's worse than that, and this is what Jordan Peterson is famous for pointing out the clear research on; the more egalitarian a society gets, the more the gender differences in interestsdivergeand not converge as was expected.e.g. the more freedom people (primarily women in this case) have in society to choose their career, the more they opt for the traditional gender roles. Which means, given the choice, you'll end up with less female engineers than more, again because of the well proven research that men a more interested in things than women. Role models don't seem make any tangible difference on average.He says it's the most well researched and surprising result in the social sciences.Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to have good female engineer role models, that's a great thing, and absolutely can make a difference on the individual level, it's just what the research findings show on average.This is why universities have resorted to forcing things like this.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:13:45 am
content: Quote from: coppice on February 28, 2025, 10:58:51 pmNot just 60 years ago, it was only 15 years ago for me. When I was part of the hiring process I used to get hundreds of resumes for a position, and if I saw one was from a female (the ratio was that small, maybe a few percent tops) then, unless the resume was absolute trash, I'd give her the opportunity for the interview. I didn't try and "make her fit", but I certainly gave her the extra opportunity.Likewise I have never seen in my career a male engineer not want female engineers to join the team or the company.My first boss was a female tech.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:32:33 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 11:50:22 pmAdvertising is of very questionable value at best and is, and is not up to this task.Very old quote: “Half my advertising spend is wasted; the trouble is, I don’t know which half.” That quote is regularly attributed to either U.S. retail magnate John Wanamaker or to UK industrialist Lord Leverhulme, depending on which side of the Atlantic you were trained. And is it only half nowadays? Most people see so many adverts that they have developed the necessary skill of ignoring it (which is much easier to do than when I was young!).No, advertising on its own is insufficient to really shift people's concept of what theypersonallycanachieve. Demonstration by example (not words) is necessary.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:42:56 am
content: Peterson is a joke. If you want to cite research, cite it directly instead of posting his takes.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradoxhttps://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemlee/women-stem-gender-equality-paradox-correctionInterests do diverge to some degree, but not to these numbers:Quote

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:43:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 12:13:45 amThat's my experience toofrom within the engineering industry. Good; that's just as it should be.But people with zero experience of the engineering industry have (false) impressions based on whatever they see in the media. Engineer == someone with dirty hands putting lagging on a boiler, and similar.Advertising ain't going to prevent such gross misconceptions.BTW, when I was in HP 60% of the top positions were held by women. Two were extremely competent and trusted. The other was Princess Carly Fiorina (yup, she who believed she was US presidential material!)

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:48:04 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 28, 2025, 11:10:25 pmSorry, not sorry, but that old canard has been pretty totally demolished.Nothing women can't or wouldn't want to do so long as they're allowed or encouraged to do it, just as men are.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:49:03 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 01, 2025, 12:42:56 amA quick skim of his wackpedia page made me think he looked like the kind of a person who would decide the results and then find data to fit it.Thanks for a bit of more solid information that tends to back up my suspicion.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:50:05 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 01, 2025, 12:48:04 amKey concepts there are, correctly, "allow" and "encourage".

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:51:05 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 12:43:39 amThe people with zero experience of engineering industries must now think there are quite a lot of women engineers. Most times you see an engineer presenting something in the media its a woman. I see figures showing several percent of mechanical and electronics engineers in western countries are women. I'd love to know where they are. The real figure must be well below 1% for anything except software, and even for software there is a stark divide. If its businessy, or desktopy there will be quite a few women. If if technical in nature, especially embedded stuff, its almost all men. The men and women self select those software areas. Nobody is pushing them.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:59:55 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 01, 2025, 12:42:56 amThere seems to be a strong focus on degrees in those studies, rather than what people do in the real world. In India, China and to varying extents other Asian countries you'll find quite a few women a year or two out of college in an engineering job. You don't find so many 5 or more years out of college. There are so many people getting degrees now, that the percentage of people making a career in an area they studied is far lower in general than it was a generation ago. I don't think looking at degrees for most people in most areas of study is very relevant to what they do as a career.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 01:07:11 am
content: Quote from: coppice on March 01, 2025, 12:51:05 amNo, and yes respectivly.Usually the female presenters look and talk like presenters first and foremost, and not much like engineers. Anybody capable of being an engineer won't be fooled.QuoteThe decent companies I have worked for (i.e. most of them!) have had maybe 20% female engineers and engineering managers. As I noted elsewhere, in HP 60% of the top corporate positions were women. 40% were liked and respected, and then there was Princess Carly Fiorina.

author: thm_w
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 01:27:50 am
content: Quote from: coppice on March 01, 2025, 12:59:55 amYes more women leave STEM than men once they are employed, do you have data as to why?Though it is related, the point of this thread was a school thinking of ways to encourage them to get a degree. The school does not have control over what happens in the workplace. Some schools definitely care about hiring percentages, but not beyond about 1 year or so out.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 01:32:04 am
content: low tolerance to the smoke that comes from that perpetual 'dumpster fire' that is engineeringmaybe a higher level of planning too, the realization that murphy won't go away next year and will just get more creative at trying to harm your career

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 01:46:19 am
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 01, 2025, 01:27:50 amI'll take a guess that it is somehow related to the ratio of males and females on this forum. Only the keenest of the keen engineers, the nerdiest of the nerdy are on forums like this one, the ones that self select to use their free time to talk to other nerds about engineering, and it's >99% male (officially, according to the stats, 1:1341)A forum where everyone is equal to join and there are literally no hurdles to joining, and you can do so anonymously, and there is no pressure on females when they are here. This place is as egalitarian as you can possibly get.So why such an insanely low percentage here?, when the ratio of males to females in the industry is way higher than that?

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 05:44:07 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on February 28, 2025, 11:10:25 pmThe empirical evidence that biology affects job preference, is weak*.The empirical evidence that society/social perceptions shape gender job preference, is much stronger*.e.g. supposedly women are biologically care givers, thus are supposedly better suited to jobs like nursing, rather than rational thinking doctors. Because this gender stereotype is reinforced, the echo chamber of gender roles is maintained.*weak/strong statistically speaking

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 06:05:29 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 01:46:19 am20 years ago I employed a very bright female electronic engineer. She's by far the best I've worked with in my 30 years in business.To her it was a job. A job she was/is very, very good at. But a job. She went home at night and didn't really think about it.I'm here because it's a job and a hobby. It's something I like to use in my "leisure" hours. She didn't, so you'd never find her on a forum talking about it.One anecdotal datapoint.

author: hwasti
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 07:05:46 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 01:46:19 amIf people are joining anonymously, how do you know their genders?In many male dominated forums women get harassed; their opinions devalued and they get propositioned. Many chose to join anonymously, or under a male persona.How do you know that the account with a name like ABC1234 is not the account of a female? If the account does not specifically announce they are female, do you assume they are male and that is how you get the 99.9% statistic?My guess, based on the experience of women I know, is that there are a lot more women here than the ones who openly disclose that they are female.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 09:06:36 am
content: Canada is worse. I've learned to read the end of the job ad first before I waste my time.This one uses many words to essentially say 'no straight white men'. Would be nice if they just put that at the top of the ad.They best part, despite paying taxes here for decades, I am banned, but people who aren't Canadians or even permanent residents (a low bar in Canada) are encouraged to apply.https://ca.indeed.com/q-nserc-jobs.html?vjk=cc0b9aaeaba9f6acQuote

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 09:09:04 am
content: Canada is worse. I've learned to read the end of the job ad first before I waste my time.This one uses many words to essentially say 'no straight white men'. Would be nice if they just put that at the top of the ad.The best part, despite paying taxes here for decades, I am banned, but people who aren't Canadians or even permanent residents (a low bar in Canada) are encouraged to apply.https://ca.indeed.com/q-nserc-jobs.html?vjk=cc0b9aaeaba9f6acQuote

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 09:11:49 am
content: Better link for last post:https://ca.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=cc0b9aaeaba9f6ac&from=sharedmwebCanada Research Chair (Tier II) in Human-Centered Explainable Artificial Intelligence, Assistant Professor (tenure-track)University of British Columbia

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 09:12:09 am
content: Quote from: hwasti on March 01, 2025, 07:05:46 amI like to think better of people.And I and the moderators make sure that sort of stuff doesn't happen on this forum.And in my experience, female engineers are proud to say they are female engineers.As always, YMMV.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 09:23:45 am
content: Quote from: BradC on March 01, 2025, 06:05:29 amIn my experience that's the majority of male engineers too.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 10:04:47 am
content: I am so sick of this quota nonsense that seems to have crept in and evaded anti-discrimination laws. Roles should not be targeted at any particular gender, race, cultural background or anything else for that matter. I strongly believe that it should be "the best person for the job". I'm yet to see any solid evidence of quotas actually having a positive impact to society.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:10:24 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 01:07:11 amThen you must have worked among a lot of very poor engineers. If most major electronics companies have tiny numbers of women in their engineering ranks, the pool of women looking for a decent engineering job is rather low. If you are recruiting a lot from that small pool you have to accept pretty much every candidate available, good or bad. The numbers just don't work out for having 20% women AND really great people.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:19:56 pm
content: Quote from: thm_w on March 01, 2025, 01:27:50 amI can give you one big factor. Serious engineering jobs require working alone most of the day, and having small amounts of interaction in meetings. The better organised the place is, the less interaction there is. Most people hate this, and are not interested in this kind of work. There is a difference between men and women, though. The pool of men who may be happy with this kind of work may be small, but the pool of women is much smaller. Some women graduate, find just how isolated the work is, stick it out until they can reach a supervisory role, where the level of human interaction is much greater, and are more content. Most just move on. Either out of engineering, or into things like sales and marketing roles. This leads to an interesting pattern in engineering sales. Male sales people tend to be those who couldn't cut it in design. Female sales people tend to be more capable, and easier to interact with.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:23:03 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 01, 2025, 12:19:56 pmIn either case, women in such roles tend to be more memorable - for various reasons.Women manages tend to be more or less capable - just like men.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:27:05 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 09:12:09 amHave you looked at cases where women engineers are not taken seriously among the women you have worked with? Apart from one or two incidents with grumpy men that nobody got along with, I've found its always a women that disrespects the woman engineers. Maybe a secretary, or someone in marketing, who just can't believe the highly accomplished female engineer can be any kind of engineer at all.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:29:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 01, 2025, 12:27:05 pmApart from the cases where it isn't X, I've found it is always X"Mensch ist mensch", the whole world over.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 12:34:42 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 12:29:04 pmOh, you really are stupid, aren't you. You can't tell the difference between an equal opportunity asshole, and one that just disrespects competent women.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 01:37:36 pm
content: I've met many people who admit that they believe misandry is acceptable, because misogyny exists.One can argue that misandry is not involved here, but I believe all discrimination is discrimination, whether you call it positive or not. What matters are the wider-ranging and long-term effects, not the stated intent in the PR materials.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 02:13:48 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 01:37:36 pmYup.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 02:33:41 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 01:37:36 pmIt feels like people who favour reverse discrimination seek some kind of never ending revenge. We've seen that favouring endless discrimination, and wanting it codified into the US constitution, is popular enough to get you 45 weeks on the NY Times best seller's list.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 02:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 12:13:45 amSame experience over here. There's no discrimination. The guys would love to have female co-workers. It's just that only a very few women are interested in engineering jobs. And it seems that this hasn't changed over the last few decades. At the uni's EE faculty we were several hundred guys, but only a handful girls. We can encourage girls to go for engineering, but we shouldn't force that. IMHO, 'equal opportunity' should mean to treat everyone the same, no matter which gender, ethnic, skin color, or whatever.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 02:46:01 pm
content: Quote from: madires on March 01, 2025, 02:40:28 pmFrom your flag, I assume you studied in Germany. Were those handful of girls German, or foreign students. Even when you see the low percentages for female engineering students, you usually have to allow for a lot of those being foreign students from countries where various factors make women more inclined to study engineering.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 03:14:54 pm
content: All German. BTW, there were much more girls in business informatics. And we had only two female lecturers, one teaching law basics and another one teaching work psychology.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 03:55:47 pm
content: Quote from: madires on March 01, 2025, 02:40:28 pmWe should indeed encourage X and Y and Z to go for engineering.What if the Y needs different encouragement to the X and the Z? Should we tailor the encouragement to each groups' different needs, or should we presume and require that X==Y==Z?Personally Ihatethe modern HR diktat that everybody should be treated exactly the same. (Unless, of course, everybody is treated in exactly the way that suitsme). IMHO it would be much better if each Human Resource is treated like <gasp> an individual Person.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 04:15:55 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 01, 2025, 09:11:49 amhttps://www.grad.ubc.ca/prospective-students/international-studentsQuoteI would hardly call 47% a minority, but they are encouraged to apply while local straight white men, who have paid taxes here for decades are banned from this position that is atleast partially taxpayer funded.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 04:23:29 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 03:55:47 pmI'm starting to think that all these people urging for Positive Discrimination are actually the real racists, because their actions indicate they believe that simply belonging to a specific group means you as an individual require extra help not everybody is entitled to from the society, and that belonging to another group means you as an individual cannot require said help regardless of your individual personal situation. As if stereotypes suffice to measure the individual.At no time in history has discrimination been overcome by doing more/different discrimination, that's for sure. Maybe they just believe they're superior to everyone else, including everybody who has tried the same before? That's quite common, too, especially in politics. Something something Dunning-Kruger comes to mind.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 04:29:02 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 03:55:47 pmWell, we used to have personnel departments, in the days when we were treated as people. Things changed, and management was surprisingly honest about it. Sure they didn't change Personnel Dept. to Meat on the Hoof Dept., but they got as close as was they felt they could with Human Commodity, I mean Rersources.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 01, 2025, 04:37:59 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 04:23:29 pmI think they kind of recognise their own hypocrisy by the frequent use of terms like "white saviour complex" about each other.Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 04:23:29 pmI think a lot of people of limited ability cling to their group to boost themselves, and then feel bad about having success beyond their own level of merit. They end up with some strange forms of trying to compensate for that.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 11:08:00 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 04:23:29 pmMy partner is black and said something along these lines to me before. By assessing her as requiring extra help, aren't you devaluing her own achievements, because they were not achieved on a level playing field with other equal candidates? She doesn't care for it one bit. She's all for reducing discrimination in the workforce, and a strong advocate for sacking anyone who bullies anyone on any characteristic, but hiring should be on merit.I do wonder how prevalent this view is across ethnic minorities.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 02:14:59 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on March 02, 2025, 11:08:00 am<I agree with the points I've snipped>My father used to say that if you find a company run by a short person, then think of investing because that person has overcome an impediment.I'd s/short/woman/ and s/short/black/.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 03:02:24 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 11:08:38 pmWhy do you think we should encourage people based on their sex?And why only engineering?Why the need to get every single profession to exactly represent the demographic of society?I argue that engaging in social engineering to get 50% 50% men women, same proportion of Muslims, Jews, black white etc. in as is found in the population, into engineering, medicine, teaching, classical music etc. is incompatible with fairness and finding the best person for the job.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 04:29:18 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 02, 2025, 03:02:24 pmIf you read more carefully and closely - particularly the bits you snipped to (try to) make your point - perhaps you will understand that Ihaven't said any of that.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 05:30:55 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 02, 2025, 03:02:24 pmPutting aside the rest of the discussion for a moment, I completely agree with that point. Where do we stop? Should we pick out fat people? Redheads? Disagreeable people? Dumb people? Should we try to ensure that people with flatulence should be proportionately represented? Absurd, I know, but I'm trying to illustrate the point. Again: where do we stop in our quest to ensure that every profession exactly represents the population as a whole in every respect? And why is that automatically deemed to be the right thing?Let me say this: I want my prime minister to be much smarter than me, and much smarter than average, if at all possible. Ditto my doctor.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 05:35:02 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on March 02, 2025, 05:30:55 pmWe can all dream.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 05:47:46 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on March 02, 2025, 05:30:55 pmShort people. Don't forget short people, who are just as much a victim of their genetics as women.QuoteSmarter attheirjobs. I'll be smarter at my job, and quite right too.As for the discussion in general, Kurt Vonnegut nailed it in Harrison Bergeron. Easily downloadable, e.g.https://lythrumpress.com.au/chapter/harrison-bergeron/

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 06:23:49 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 02, 2025, 05:47:46 pmVictim? Almost everyone over 1.8m tall suffers some amount of back trouble, so there are positive and negative aspects to being short. If you are 2m tall and love basketball you've probably won the genetic lottery, but if you are 2m tall and don't love basketball its likely to be a substantial negative in your life. Only severe handicaps are a clear loss in the genetic lottery. Not having the qualities needed for the activities you enjoy is not great, but most people can find things where they achieve a reasonable fit between something they enjoy and something they can do reasonably well.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 06:27:06 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on March 02, 2025, 11:08:00 amIt probably varies mostly by the person's ability. If they know they aren't great they may be OK with it. We certainly see quite a few prominent useless people who think they were entitled to what they got. There is/was a rather sad video on YouTube of a black woman who had recently got her Doctorate in something hard STEM who was depressed by getting offers from every place she applied to, as she could see they didn't give a damn about her ability, only her race. It can't feel any better than people who know they were not considered because of some prejudice.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 06:44:16 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 01, 2025, 12:49:03 amHe's hardly unique in academia for doing that. Especially when it comes to topics such as gender, race etc. The difference is, Peterson is socially conservative and most of academia are socially progressive, along with much of Wikipedia, so it's hardly surprising he's painted in a poor light.Quote from: tggzzz on March 02, 2025, 04:29:18 pmI take your point that some people need encouragement and maybe that's different for different people, but that comes down to knowing the person on an individual level and large faceless organisations can't do that.Quote from: SteveThackery on March 02, 2025, 05:30:55 pmIt's a socialist political ideology: make everyone equal, which is nice in theory, but in reality it makes everyone equally poor. I could write a long post about it, but I'll refrain from doing so.Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 01, 2025, 04:23:29 pmOh, I am in favour of positive discrimination, which doesn't make me racist. The only form of discrimination which is positive, is the type which solely discriminates on the applicant's ability to do the job.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 07:03:02 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 02, 2025, 06:44:16 pmAgreed.All this discrimination bullshit is pretty much 20 years out of date, IME and the positive discrimination thing, although still seemingly rampant is firmly being kept alive, not because of need, but by the minority noisy woke contingent who seem hellbent on destroying society.I do wish they'd all just fuck off to Afghanistan where there's real need for equal opportunities and pedal their hate making policies there.X

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 07:27:24 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 02, 2025, 06:27:06 pmSounds like she needs to ask for more pay, then the lower level offers will start to disappear. If she could leverage her race to get better pay, isn't that a good thing?

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 08:07:20 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 02, 2025, 07:27:24 pmEven if she can really squeeze considerable money out of the universities it still quite corrosive for her to have no idea what people think of her work. I've seen other videos from black people trying to contend with this. There was a video from a black guy in a creative writing course who was angry that the course was not helping him develop his skills at all. Whatever crap he turned in to test the system he still got a A+ and heaps of praise. Videos like this pop up fairly often from serious black people who can't figure out how to get themselves challenged in their courses.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 08:18:02 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on February 28, 2025, 11:08:38 pmBasically a lot of moderately capable people need to shown the current reality that the average IQ for university students is barely above 100, and the barriers to entry, with or without preferential barriers, aren't that big any more. They need to weigh up whether that means higher education is a waste of money for them, but its a good starting point for people from families where nobody ever went to university to start looking realistically at their options.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 08:35:51 pm
content: One consequence of lowering the barrier to entry is that it quickly ends up causing more inequalities, because there's still a need for highly-educated people, and so there still are elitist universities and curricula, making the gap even larger than before by drowning the above-average, but not exceptional people into a pool of mediocrity and preventing them to climb the social ladder.That's something that the proponents of "forced equality" fail to understand (or they do but they just lie). This doesn't give everyone equal chances to succeed. It gives most people equal chances to fail.Just my 2.05 cents.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 08:44:04 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on March 02, 2025, 08:18:02 pmMy daughter used to work in "university outreach" for a Russell Group university. Unsurprisingly, a lot was to do with "student finance" and misconceptions about it. More interestingly, she was astounded by the level of ignorance amongst people where nobody in their family had ever been to university.Manyassumed that, like schools and A-levels, all universities and courses were nominally equally good.Given that level of ignorance about the whole area, expecting such people to rationally weigh things and options up is merely pie in the sky. It is about as realistic as expecting me to do a high jump, where "high" is <<1m!I, and I presume you, are in a privileged position which means we simply cannot have the intuition to understand other people's perceptions, understandings and misunderstandings. We have to have some disciplined humility. My daughter has enlightened me in some other respects too.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 08:46:37 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on March 02, 2025, 08:35:51 pmWhen people start prattling on about everybody being equal, I point out that they will never be my equal. The intelligent ones spot what I'mnotsaying.When people start prattling on about making everybody equal, I tell them the plot of Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron.I also have some useful put downs for people that materialise on my door and try to convince me of six improbable things before breakfast. Those are most effective if their children are with them

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 09:01:51 pm
content: There's an obvious solution to this whole mess, one which would further both the quest for more equality across professions,andsupport merit-based hiring:The formula would be thus: given a set ofequally-qualifiedapplicants for a position, assign points based on their membership in a minority/marginalized/discriminated-against group. Add those points to their overall score. Then select the applicant(s) based on those scores.The applicants must all be absolutely qualified for the position: no fudging allowed on that score.The points given for excluded-group membership should be lightly weighted: the idea isn't for those scores to swamp the merit-based one, but simply to tip the scales in case of a "tie".If the applicants were ranked so that one or more of the group stood out as better-qualified, then none of this would come into play at all: the best applicant(s) would simply be selected on that basis.I believe this might work and could be equitable.Unfortunately, I don't think this has a chance in hell of actually being implemented.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 09:32:40 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 02, 2025, 08:46:37 pmImprobable? Or do you mean impossible?Oh please do share,particularlysorry, especially if it makes them cry

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 10:05:03 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 02, 2025, 08:44:04 pmI very much understand these perceptions. I was the first person in my family to go to university, although quite a few of the generation after me went. I never applied to Oxford or Cambridge as I thought it was a waste of time, and I wouldn't be accepted. I realised a little later that I could easily have gone there. I'm glad I didn't though. I've known quite a few people of moderate ability from public schools who sailed through Oxbridge. I've also known some every smart working class people who were very well prepared by a good Grammar School, but struggled through Oxbridge, or dropped out and went somewhere else. They just couldn't fit in. I had no idea how my application would be seen, so I applied to a mix of mid tier and top tier colleges. Having people to turn to for advice at that point would have been very valuable. I chose between Imperial and UCL and I still thing they were the right final 2 for me. My father was an electromechanical engineer, but my interest was electronics. I didn't know anyone in that field. In the first few months of my first job after college I was able to interact with a number of good electronics engineers approaching retirement. They painted a picture of jobs in UK electronics being rather unstable, but as one project died another was usually recruiting, and their working lives had been pretty stable. That kind of input when I was 17, and choosing what to do, would have been gold for me.Note that times change, and electronics employment in the UK isn't all that stable by any metric these days.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 10:31:01 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 02, 2025, 03:02:24 pmBecause engineering is a respected mostly non-physical white collar target industry, which makes it an easy target. Electrician, plumbing, construction etc isn't, so nobody bothers campaigning for those.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 02, 2025, 10:39:02 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 02, 2025, 09:32:40 pmNothing as crude as crying, but hopefully more effective in the long term.I talk to the children, putting them at the centre of a yarn, and encouraging them to say what they think or would do in such a situation. Then I switch to the analogous yarn in their favourite book, and show that - to their amazement and distress - it says something unacceptable. The adults have difficulty dismissing the yarn because it comes from the trusted source.Last time this happened the child looked at her mother and said, in an incredulous tone of voice "does Xreallysay that?" . The mother did not reply, so I looked at the child and shruggedNo, I am not going to give the details on this forum.

author: 5U4GB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 06:34:35 am
content: I could go either way on this. When I did engineering in the 1980s it was 100% male, all lecturers were male, all students were male, I think they had one female student preserved in formaldehyde and installed in a glass cabinet at the entrance to show that something other than guys existed. 30-odd years later they had at least one female lecturer, and she was both tougher than any of the guys there (she had to be, in that environment) and still found it really hard going. She was also incredibly sharp and a great lecturer, she wasn't a diversity hire.So I can see why there'd be valid arguments for trying to get more women in.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 01:51:37 pm
content: Quote from: 5U4GB on March 03, 2025, 06:34:35 amSure, let's get more woman into the university and workplace.How would you like if there is a hiring stop on man, until it's 50-50%? Until you have all the minorities also represented. And sexual orientations. And disabilities (or differently abled or whatever term they are using now).Also please make sure you have the right political orientation, we don't need diversity of thought, we need compliance."And if you cannot get a job after all this, you damn well deserve it you bigot."Stuff that you weren't even allowed to ask about in a job interview yesterday, to avoid discrimination, is somehow a requirements to apply for a job now.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 02:28:45 pm
content: Yep. I've been very happy to work with every female engineer and scientist I've worked with, and definitely prefer a diverse workplace.It is only a matter of which tools are used to get more diversity in. Outreach, PR: all fine to me, no matter how you emphasize your target, as long as some is available to all. Quotas over meritocratic selection, not fine. Breaking ties based on diversity I'll accept, although I'm not particularly happy about it (because I always seem to be outside every single preferred group).I will never accept the "equality of outcome" quota politics, because it is extremely likely thatutopiaalways leads to a societal collapse. This was shown by the famous Universe 25 or Behavioural Sink experiment on Norway rats by ethologist John Calhoun in 1958-1962. Striving for optimum conditions for every individual regardless of their own efforts is very likely highly destructive on human societies, just like it was on Norway rats. Based on history across the world, it seems that humans are happiest when their own efforts can significantly increase the resources and social status they have, therefore meritocratic competition is the most likely path to maximising human happiness.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 04:33:54 pm
content: Here is another one from Canada. Discrimination in bold at the top of the ad. Does that mean they had too many 'undesirables' apply last round? It notes they failed to fill it in the first round.https://recruitment-recrutement.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/job/Waterloo-Industrial-Technology-Advisor-Start-UpScale-Up-ON/577331817/Quote

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 04:54:48 pm
content: I'm just curious, are Chinese and Indian people considered minorities? Will they be given priority in being hired?

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 05:14:04 pm
content: I think 'racialized persons' means anyone who is not white, though whites are quickly becomming minorities.https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6867993Quotehttps://www.grad.ubc.ca/prospective-students/international-studentsQuote

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 05:25:38 pm
content: Quote from: gamalot on March 03, 2025, 04:54:48 pmChinese no. You could be born in a labor camp to parents who had to tend fields in exchange for a bowl of rice. And some idiot ivy league school professor will tell you that you are privileged.I don't know if you noticed but they don't care about facts or actual history.

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 03, 2025, 05:41:41 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 03, 2025, 05:25:38 pmI immigrated to Australia from China 10 years ago, so I want to share some things that many people here don't know.In mainland China, the Han Chinese population accounts for more than 90% of the total population, and the remaining less than 10% are more than 50 other ethnic groups. In China's unified college entrance examination system, students other than the Han Chinese will receive extra points.Interestingly, when some American universities treat different races differently, Han Chinese students from China find that their situation is actually the same as when they were in China.

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 06:46:34 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on March 01, 2025, 12:01:40 amWell i mean there's some kind of mechanism that makes women be attracted more to men than other women. Perhaps this same mechanism makes them more attracted to certain roles than others? Certain roles that align better with certain professions. Certain professions that require certain education.

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 07:18:11 am
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 01, 2025, 09:06:36 amIdentify as a woman and get the position. This is what the current generation does now and it's called transmaxxing.If they have any problem with that, then call them X-ist and Y-phobic, with prejudice against Z.

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 07:33:11 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on March 02, 2025, 07:27:24 pmTrue. If i noticed that i'm getting offers just because of my race, then i would literally just start farming for more money. It's literally a win-win situation.Win - asking for more money makes them reevaluate you as a person with an increased chance of them focusing more on skill than race - validating your education and effort.Win - you get the same shitty race-bait job, but at least you're farming money, that you can immediately blow on expensive test equipment and become a proud member of the TEA group.

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 07:50:15 am
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 03, 2025, 04:33:54 pmFeels like i would fit right in with what they need. Being of Baltic ethnicity, i am a minority on the global scale, who have lived through multiple ethnocides by Germans, Russians and other great powers. I live in a country that had only gained independence in 1991 and have had to work hard to get back on their feet after escaping the hellhole that was the soviet union.Yet for your recruiters i would be just another "white male" and perhaps even a "slave owner", because prejudice is only bad when it's used against you.Edit: to keep this reply from going too off topic form the OP. I'll add that i've never had problems with women in engineering. I actually congratulate and celebrate any woman who has decided to join our ranks.IMO universities lowering acceptance criteria for women are doing them a disservice. Your numbers of females might increase, but their skill level will become lower, due to lower standards. In turn they will struggle to find a job to apply their knowledge, of will find themselves lacking competence to do anything useful.This is also a loss for employers as well, because they will have a lower number of qualified engineers to choose from, as people, who could have been exceptional engineers, lost the opportunity to become educated, due to their gender.If it so happens, that an employer hires mostly men due to women lacking skill, due to lower standards of education, then that might also make the company a target of whatever "gender equality" initiative sets their eyes upon them. In which case the company might be forced to hire engineers that are women, because they're women, not because they're engineers.Engineering is a high skill-cap game, where you need all the help you can get to not fall flat on your face once you get your first job.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 08:26:07 am
content: Quote from: Refrigerator on March 04, 2025, 06:46:34 amThere is the biological determinism of pregnancy too. The large amount of leave does not work well with all professions. You can go Sweden style and just give men ungodly amounts of paid leave when their wife is pregnant to even the odds a bit, but government can't really give them the same bond with the child and make them as likely to reduce their work commitments after starting a family.Nature is a shit.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 03:58:44 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 08:46:52 amIf they are going to go down that route maybe they should split the institutes, one for men, one fortransgender,maybe?and one for women.Quote from: EEVblog on February 28, 2025, 08:52:22 amIf not for men or other groups and now that sounds to me like discrimination. Why not help them in other ways such as extra time and assistance to get to those standards and scores so they don't fail up the subject (if they pass them like this at a lower pass rate) or in the field.What about an equal limit of say 50% for both genders when course is full.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 06:00:16 pm
content: I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the US there are bigger issues than gender in selecting candidates for university or jobs. The one that concerns me the most is young people who select career paths purely for perceived financial benefits or because of current media popularity. I had peers in university who opted for a medical doctor career path strictly for the money. They had no interest in the field, and in some cases actively disliked it. I certainly pity their future patients. In this country two popularized professions are law and diagnostic criminology. The first because lawyers are idolized in media and charge high hourly rates, the second because crime scene analysis programs are as dominant on TV now as westerns ever were. Neither profession has room for all the applicants, and most have no idea what the job really involves.Focusing on gender or ethnic background or anything else of the sort wastes effort that could be better spent elsewhere.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 06:40:32 pm
content: Quote from: gamalot on March 03, 2025, 05:41:41 pmYes. I'm aware of affirmative action in China. It was also practised in the Soviet Union. The Left in the West are more enthusiastic about it, because other means of wealth redistribution have ended badly, which is why they're pursuing it, amongst other alternatives.Why did you immigrate to Australia?Do you think affirmative action is a good thing?

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 04, 2025, 11:34:12 pm
content: QuoteAlthough my wife is unlikely to visit EEVBlog forum, I still have to be careful to say: for love.I followed my wife to Australia, and she prefers the relatively simple interpersonal relationships here.For me, the situation in China at that time was not bad enough for me to leave in a hurry. China has changed a lot in the past ten years, and I have never been there again.QuoteI usually like the middle way, and I don’t mind building more blind paths or other barrier-free facilities. But recruiting (or enrolling) based on skin color is unacceptable to me. It is unfair to those who study and work hard.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2025, 12:06:00 am
content: Quote from: gamalot on March 04, 2025, 11:34:12 pmYes; but that's notnecessarilywhat affirmative action (or DEI or whatever term you want to use) aims to do, or actually does.Please readthis reply of mine in this thread, which nobody has yet commented on:It lays out whatcouldbe a good, workable policy to try to achieve more equity in hiring, meaning less discrimination against applicants based on characteristics that have nothing to do with job performance (race, gender, etc.).The idea is not to hire on the basis of skin color or other factors (which would indeed be unfair), but to use those factors only as a possible tie-breaker in the case of equally-qualified candidates (based on merit). Otherwise those factors wouldn't even be considered.Couldbe. I'd be curious to hear your take on this (admittedly somewhat utopian) scheme.

author: gamalot
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2025, 12:24:08 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 05, 2025, 12:06:00 amWhat I want to say is that when a policy is biased towards a certain group of people, even though it is considered to be very rigorous and fair, it is still very likely to go to extremes when it is implemented.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 05, 2025, 03:51:51 am
content: Quote from: Refrigerator on March 04, 2025, 07:18:11 amI think there are easier lies to tell. Sad part is now they'll be hiring the least honest.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2025, 01:18:02 am
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 05, 2025, 03:51:51 amYes, but that is really business as usual.As an analogy, many people think of evolution as being survival of the fittest and strongest, when it is often more the ability to adapt to the environment and succeed within a framework of rules. Leading to weird things like brightly coloured birds that are neither strong nor especially fit.DEI has been an exercise in people adapting and exploiting the social environment for personal gain.Hot take, but there's nothing inherently wrong or immoral about males calling themselves women in order to game the system. They've been existing in a system that will pass them over, and by extension pass over their skills in favour of other identity groups. This is in the backdrop of human society that doesn't value male identity outside of their skills. That's a much larger topicSo when I hear terfs complaining about trans stuff, I go

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2025, 08:02:40 am
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 01, 2025, 09:06:36 amOh My fucking Dog! Is this happening in real life?In the event that a candidate is sitting in an interview in front of me and they mention DEI in the context of positive discrimination/affirmative action, in an obvious effort to gain some advantage, they get the standard text:QuoteIn the conjunction the candidate mentions it again during the interview their application is rejected.I'm all for everyone having an equal chance to develop their talents and be introduced to all opportunities, but trying to force equality of numbers in the workplace to mirror the local/national demographic is just cretinous.X

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 06, 2025, 08:47:10 am
content: Quote from: Refrigerator on March 04, 2025, 07:50:15 amAll the other issues with this subject can be argued ad infinitum.However.I am as my profile states, and I believe my academic qualifications were gained without positive bias, but sure as hell if I wasn't welcomed into the profession and helped by the stereotypical "grumpy forthright middle aged, white male EEs" I'd have been royally screwed, and not in the fun way.X

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 07:29:51 pm
content: Just filled out yet another job application that asks about my race, sex and pronouns but not my skills. On the plus side, I now have more motivation to put more work into starting my own business.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 07:57:27 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 07:29:51 pmI find that difficult to imagine. Can you provide the application form/questions etc?At best that job sounds like one of these:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs"Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters".

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:04:49 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 07:29:51 pmEasy. Tell them you're: Native American (they're not going to give you a DNA test), bisexual (you can be married to a woman, but they're going to ask you to prove you like men too) and your pronouns are he/they/them during the week and she/they/them on Saturday nights.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:18:40 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 13, 2025, 07:57:27 pmIt's for a senior engineering role. A slight backpedal: they did ask for my resume and linkedin so I guess that counts as asking about my skills. Most the form focused on questions I never thought I'd see.Have you done much job hunting lately?Quote

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:25:32 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 13, 2025, 09:04:49 pmI think bisexual but married and monogamous would be the easiest lie to tell: what proof could they demand? Not my style though, I don't want to lie and contribute to this mess.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:25:43 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 09:18:40 pmNopeI've seen many grim application processes over the decade, starting when I was still at university. Grimness is not new, but the form does mutate.Grim processes have one advantage: they enabled me to work out where Ididn'twant to work, and increased my confidence I'd picked a good job.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:50:36 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 13, 2025, 09:25:43 pmIt is nice when bad management filters themselves out.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 09:58:32 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 09:50:36 pmDitto corporate culture, which is more difficult to change than managers.Sussing out the corporate culture is essential.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 10:01:30 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 09:25:32 pmSeriously, just answer the questions with none of your darn business.

author: Kasper
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 10:09:33 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 13, 2025, 09:58:32 pmAnd even more difficult to change is government culture that gives extra support to these companies.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 13, 2025, 11:31:14 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on February 28, 2025, 09:43:57 amIt is not a Federal matter.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2025, 01:12:40 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on March 13, 2025, 11:31:14 pmExcept it is a Federal/Commonwealth matter:https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/australias-anti-discrimination-lawwith the reverse having been a rather interesting study in the matter:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2004-03-11/howard-goward-at-odds-on-male-teachers-plan/149728https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/howards-affirmative-action-for-men-20040311-gdiikj.htmlthat is now considered unsupported as affirmative action as there is a lack of evidence that discrimination exists, or that there is any benefit to society."lowering" of scores for entry is a side effect of how university admissions are conducted, its simply a ranking and the entry score is indicative of what score has achieved entry. Entry scores are not trying to link directly to aptitude or capability but are instead a nationally (sometimes internationally) consistent way to provide some mechanical means of filling up the available courses in order of peoples preferences. Adding some additional "points" to specific peoples scores is done for a variety of reasons:https://www.latrobe.edu.au/study/apply/undergrad/vtac/la-trobe-special-access-schemes(regional study, or sporting activities)https://www.deakin.edu.au/study/how-to-apply/special-entry-access-scheme/under-represented-regional-and-indigenous-students(age, indigeneity, regional study, poor school, immigrants)https://www.rmit.edu.au/study-with-us/applying-to-rmit/local-student-applications/equity-access-schemes(age, indigeneity, regional study, poor school, immigrants, sex/gender identity, disability, finance, etc etc)Much better than adding a quota which would have no limit to the separation between those designated groups.

author: Refrigerator
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2025, 08:19:25 pm
content: Quote from: Kasper on March 13, 2025, 09:25:32 pmI see this as a valid exploit to earn more money for doing less work. At the end of the day, to me, a job is just a source if income.More money = more better = i can turn my old daily into a track car.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2025, 08:43:09 pm
content: Quote from: Refrigerator on March 14, 2025, 08:19:25 pmHow sad.Remember why every engineer needs a mistress. He can tell the wife he is with the mistress, the mistress he is with the wife - while he goes to the lab and has undisturbed fun.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2025, 11:28:55 pm
content: I thought about this for a few days, and I came to the conclusion that these people understand nothing about fundamental human psychology, specifically the effect offairness. Hell, it is not even a human concept: it is very keen in many other species as well, my favourite example beingthisYoutube video on capuchin monkey fairness experiment excerpted from a Ted talk.Simply put, preferential treatment of some group will cause that group to be discriminated against by members of the larger group, because of the perceived unfairness.As we see in that capuchin monkey experiment, asingleevent will not cause this: most of the anger is directed at the human, not the preferentially treated monkey. But, if the experiment was repeated enough times, with the same one always getting the preferential treatment, you'd see some serious resentment. It's often observed in dogs as well. And humans, all throughout history, of course. Ignore this fundamental psychological fact at your own peril.In workplaces, I can only see this kind of preferential treatment increase discrimination and tribalism, not reduce it.(Equality of opportunity is fairness; equity or equality of outcomes is not. If one of the monkeys failed to produce the pebble, and only got cucumber instead of a grape for the failed effort, they wouldn't get angry.)

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 14, 2025, 11:39:01 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 14, 2025, 11:28:55 pmIf I were the Ayatollah of the world, I'd have that inscribed in marble everywhere:Equality of opportunity is fairness; equality of outcomes is not.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 12:39:55 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 14, 2025, 11:39:01 pmThose concepts are subtle and have many possible definitions.To take a very simplistic example, suppose someone is given some starting capital, $X, and uses it to make a profit of $100. Suppose another person is given $Y and makes $200 profit.Which would be the better person to hire?What conditions would be required for the choice to be "fair"?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 01:15:02 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 12:39:55 amSimplistic and also inconclusive.Anything involving economics cannot be a good measurement of ability, since there are lots of other factors involved.You'd need to pick another example that's not susceptible to "externalities" for it to be a true measure of merit.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 03:18:25 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 15, 2025, 01:15:02 amIn many Private Sector workplaces, the true measure of merit is "drinks with the Boss".

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 03:59:38 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 12:39:55 amThere are two arguably fair choices:When $X = $Y. Obvious.When you compare relative profits, ($X-$100)/$X and ($Y-$200)/$Y.Every other case is fundamentally unfair. Even the second case can be argued to be unfair inpractice, because it is much easier to make 10% profit on $1M of capital than 10% profit on $1 of capital due to service costs and similar: many things require specific amounts of capital before they can be exploited for profit.Put another way: Let's say worker 1 completes task A in time T1, and worker 2 completes task B in time T2. Which one is better worker?The comparison itself is nonsensical, unless you assume that the amount of starting capital is irrelevant (you consider equality of outcome equality, which I consider a logical fallacy), or that there are no individuals, only workers (which I consider a reprehensible idea). In practice, if you put worker 1 at task B (completion in T1') and worker 2 at task A (completion in T2'), you'll find that their 'ranking' depends on the task. This happens because each worker is an individual, not a carbon copy. You can then apply statistics to determine which workers are best allocated at which task. If you also assign some income for completion of each task (same income for a task regardless of worker), and worker-specific cost of paying them for doing a task for a time unit, you can then say which workers are the most profitable for the employer. Adjust any of those costs on a per-worker basis to get "more equal outcomes" or because of "positive discrimination", and you arrive at unfair comparisons and unfair results. Very simple.So, no, it isn't complicated or subtle, nor does it have many possible definitions: only loaded questions and unfair comparisons. The most realistic answer to such ("subtle and variously defined questions") is "no fair answer exists without additional information".Sometimes I think past humans were much more sensible in such things, what with their future supercomputers often erroring out with "insufficient information". In reality, both our computers and our culture has moved on into "if you don't know, then fake or hallucinate something that sounds plausible, and act if that was the factual answer all along", making many clear-cut things ambiguous and delicate and subtle and variously defined.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 04:18:47 am
content: Nominal, I disagree with your answer that it isn't complicated. You have expounded on how even this simple metric is more complicated than it appears, and you didn't include all the many variables. And a 1 dimensional evaluation of capability is a foolishly simple hiring strategy.Honestly and fairly and accurately assessing the relative suitability of two or more candidates is enormously complicated and extremely difficult.Fortunately in many real world cases quite a few candidates are not closely balanced. It makes the problem somewhat smaller.Fortunately for businesses, and perhaps unfortunately for candidates good enough is usually the requirement. Failure to get the very best is seldom fatal.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 07:56:51 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on March 15, 2025, 01:15:02 amOf course it is simplistic!I chose money because it is numerical and money is something Americans seem to focus onChoose any other metric, and the problems with your concept/statement are unchanged.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 08:00:38 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on March 15, 2025, 03:18:25 amThat is called "fitting in with the corporate culture", of course.Not necessarily bad, but it can lead to echo chambers, lack of adaptability when circumstances change."Echo chambers" includes,but is not limited to, thinking, speech and other mental attributes.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 08:04:50 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 15, 2025, 03:59:38 amYou have to agree on the definition of "fair" - and in general there are many useful and valid definitions.Then you have to choose the better person for the job - and that's a completely different issue.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 09:35:57 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 08:04:50 amNo. You don't declare fairness, any more like you declare what physical laws are. You can onlymodelthese.That is, youdiscoverwhat is fair, just like you discover physical laws.If you want to discover whether some potential action or outcome will be considered fair or unfair, you examine similar actions in history, and their results. Empiricism rules absolutely here; the scientific approach to this is still in its infancy (in various aspects of behavioural sciences and game theory).You do not get to agree on some definition of "fair", and then cop out from the results of unfairness by pointing out that by "the definition" what happened was fair. That is similar denying of reality as defining pi as exactly 3.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 10:03:11 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 15, 2025, 09:35:57 amThis is so much true because like other human emotions (anger, love, whatever), feeling of fairness is also so deeply hard-coded within our brain, and distributed to billions of people, that there is no way to really change it to suit our definition. Therefore, we need to observe how our actions cause other people to react, and then evaluate if that is beneficial to the task, and adjust how we treat others, instead of trying to define how they should be feeling. Good leaders intuitively understand this.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 10:04:12 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 15, 2025, 09:35:57 amConsider an example from my past: computer networks with a shared medium. "Fair access" can meaneach source has an equal probability of gaining access to the mediumeach source has an equal delay before it gains access to the mediumBoth definitions are good, sensible -and mutually incompatible.Youmust choosewhich definition to use when designing a MAC and measuring its performance.Now change "source" to "person" and "medium" to "job", and you can begin to see definitions have to be stated and agreed.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 10:08:31 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 10:04:12 amYou're confusing the word "fairness" as used to represent some varying set of desirable conditions, and the word "fairness" as used to describe a fundamental behavioural pattern in humans and other animals.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 10:48:08 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 15, 2025, 10:08:31 amI'm not confusing anything. I am using the word "fair" in a well-established and standard way:https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/fair_2https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fairhttps://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/fairespecially definitions related to "according to the rules".(I appreciate English is not your first language!)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 02:15:11 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 15, 2025, 10:08:31 amWhy do you argue with a woke ideologue?Pointless.Only way to handle this is to beat them in an election and make these things illegal.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 15, 2025, 04:04:55 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 15, 2025, 02:15:11 pmOnce somebody descends to political dog whistles, you know they are only interested in shutting down discussions.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 03:04:34 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 10:48:08 amNevertheless, the concept of "fairness" I'm discussing is a different one.By limiting your understand of "fairness" to the standard definition of "fair" you're using, you're making yourself blind to the actual observable facts and behaviour.The situation is similar to when Newtonian mechanics failed to correctly describe the orbit precession of Mercury (which was first observed in 1859). You can either accept that your definition or model of mechanics is insufficient, or stick to your definition and claim there must be something else influencing Mercury's orbit, like an even inner planet, Vulcan.Here, we have a situation where a specific definition of "fairness" is applied. It does not match human behaviour, instead causing further discrimination and tribalization. Because the same behaviour pattern is observed in other animals as well, it isintrinsic; and trying to "educate" people to behave differently is generally considered quite hostile and violent by almost all psychologists and sociologists. Refusing to acknowledge this issue, by shielding behind the definition of "fair" as "standard", is either ridiculously stupid or straight-up evil.Just like with Mercury, we have over a century of research and observations toknowthat it is the underlying model, Newtonian mechanics or the "standard definition of fair", that fails to capture the reality. I'm saying that ignoring that century, and sticking to your definitions over known observable facts and behavioural patterns, is illogical and doomed to failure.Quote from: tszaboo on March 15, 2025, 02:15:11 pmI'm very fundamentally an individual-egalitarian, with emphasis on enlightened self-interest.I do not believe in making fundamental misconceptions illegal. Even if someone believes in a flat earth, reptilian alien infiltrators, global conspiracies, that positive discrimination can eliminate all discrimination, or whatever, I do not believe making those illegal will make anything better. Only honest, direct discourse, where even the sacred concepts are brutally opened up and investigated through scientific method and rational thought, can make things better.Plus, tggzzz seems to be able to engage in rational discourse, which tells me it is unlikely they're an ideologue of any kind.My goal is not to change anyones mind to match mine, because I do not know if I'm right. What I want is the honest discussion, applying rational thought and scientific method, carefully avoiding word games and social manipulation tactics. Whatever the end result is, I too will learn something interesting and likely useful. Whether others do, is up to them; but I do believe it will honestly reflect their character as well.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 04:09:04 am
content: vulcan is real , its just made of pure diamond so you can't see it in front of the sun

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 05:03:19 am
content: Nominal, you're Newtonian physics analogy doesn't work with your explanation. Newtonian physics works quite well in a great many situations. And while clearly wrong in detail for the Mercury observation, it is quite close. Yet you are saying that the fairness definition is not even close to right.I would agree that there might be better definitions of fair, but we are much further from being able to model them than you seem to feel. We are not even at the epicycle stage.I also suspect that when (and if) such theories are developed they will not give a definition that is consistent over time. Marketing, general social status and changing fundamental values will all have to be folded into the model.And those of us who feel that we are currently being treated unfairly might feel even worse under that more accurate, but different model of fairness than under the current conditions. Unless they can change their ethos and understandings to match that future society.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 07:13:25 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 16, 2025, 05:03:19 amNot even close? The standard definition of "fair"doeswork in many situations, just not when the distinction is between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. The standard definition can be argued to match both –– and that is basically how I understood tggzzz's argument here –– but the observable results really only match one.I do not believe humans are capable enough to define what the exact rules of the underlying intrinsically occurring "fairness" are, actually. (Compare to the Theory of Everything.) What I am pointing out is that none of this is "new and untested": we have practical evidence we could look at, before claiming that a specific interpretation will yield "fairness" as a result.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 16, 2025, 05:03:19 amWhy should that matter?Look, I'm not talking about ethics or morality here. I'm only saying that intrinsic fairness exists, and has huge impact on human behaviour (and several other species' as well), regardless of whether we can model it or not.Ignoringit, or defining it away, does not change reality or the results.With the topic at hand, the end result of preferential treatment based on group membership is less capable persons getting hired, with individuals responding to that perceived unfairness reacting with increased tension, tribality, and discrimination within the workforce. That is what I discovered when I looked into this. You cannot eliminate the perceived unfairness except by eliminating a large fraction (and specifically all top performers) of the candidates and workers: "re-training" them just doesn't work. The actual real-world results define the action, not the intent, nor the words.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:11:13 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 03:04:34 amYeah no.Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 03:04:34 amI do. We ban all kinds of things symbols, swastika, sickles and hammers. It's done with a good reason.Ideas are fine to have and sometimes it's worth investigating them, and very rarely they lead to something better than before. Most often not.If someone tells you that they are going to burn down civilization, take that at face value. That's what the woke are. Destroying everything you value.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:55:22 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 03:04:34 amWell, I don't think that is a valid glory. There's a reason for dictionaries!QuoteI'm not an idealogue, and I do try to engage in rational discourse.If you keep an eye out for tszaboo's posts, you will see that he frequently descends into that kind of statement. I don't recall that always being the case, so maybe someone has hijacked his account or he has had a crisis of some sort. Either way, there's no point in trying and failing to counter his political points.Quote from:https://www.alice-in-wonderland.net/resources/chapters-script/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-6/

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 09:04:59 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 16, 2025, 08:11:13 amOh, I do freely admit I could be wrong: my understanding is limited by definition.I just do not believe we can do any better without the brutally honest discussions to learn more, reflecting on history, ignoring intent and social niceties, concentrating on the actual results. You can find that some of the work of absolute human monsters has benefited us greatly, and that some very respected and well regarded people, especially philosophers and statesmen, were utter human arseholes. Without that reflection, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes again and again.Fairness, however, is an observable effect, and at the core of this discussion. Defining the word does nothing to the phenomenon.Ignoringthe phenomenon (by rigorously defining the term "fair" or "equality", for example) is self-defeating and will cause failure. This was the point I was trying to convey in#130, but I guess me just fail human language.Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 08:55:22 amSure; and human languages are difficult to use precisely. It's why we invented math and other tools, I think.Nevertheless, the underlying phenomenon is what we should be concentrating on, instead of the words used and their definitions. I fully agree that it can be difficult to predict whether the effects of an action will be perceived asfairby most humans –– unless one looks into the historical record and behavioral studies done. That is the core of my objection: ignoring precedent and real-world results of specific actions, as if theintentbehind the action could change the real-world results. I do believe psychologists call thatmagical thinking.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 09:19:09 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 09:04:59 amWe agree.The root cause of that problem is that there are so many equally valid ways in which "fair" can be - and is - defined.Ideologues of all persuasions typically try to force their definition on other people. Doubly so those ideologues who resort to political dog whistles.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:02:23 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 09:04:59 amI agree, and here is my proposition:There is no value worth adapting from the woke ideology. It just has to go on the list of things that we tried, realized it's a horrible aberration and must be handled the same way as these past mistakes. Stonewalling it and leaning how they almost thrown us into total chaos.Instead of discussing the ideas, discuss it as cold hard numbers and all their ideas fall apart faster than a house of cards:https://www.pmc.gov.au/resources/10-year-plan/current-stateAnd let's use their own numbers, for this particular country. Read more than the headlines. Pay gap is estimated 13-28%, while men work 39 hours a week compared to 32 hours. So what gap?When you take the woke claims it literally boils down to stupid things, like: We must abolish the patriarchy and burn down western civilization because there is a 3% pay gap between sexes.Which is BTW lower than any time in history, and which happened despite the divisive bullshit they have been doing. Not hiring men isn't helping it just going to divide things more, and lead to backlash, that's going to hurt their efforts more than anything. If you are surprised by my comments, just wait until the really pissed off people show up.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:11:02 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 16, 2025, 10:02:23 amPure politics. I suggest people go elsewhere if they want to discuss this.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:24:03 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 09:19:09 amAh, I think I now see your viewpoint.I believe the only viable solution for now and the foreseeable future is the simple, empirical way: to look at all precedents with similarity (as objectively as possible, i.e. not limiting oneself to those examples that happen to match our preconceptions and expectations), and define the likelihood of a proposed action of being fair vs. unfair based on correlation and statistics. To me, this is so obvious that I find it difficult to understand some might feel/believe differently.I'm not suggesting that every individual does this all the time, only when it affects large number of people, especially at governmental level; stuff like organizational/company policy.At the individual level, I think we must mostly rely on our instincts, experience, and understanding; knowing that every one of us have varying preconceptions and remnants of our evolutionary past (a common one being distrust/rejection of thedifferent) that we need to overcome to properly thrive in the societies we have.In the past, archetypes in legends and stories were how we tried to pass on the experience and understanding to new generations, including that regarding the nature of the fairness phenomenon we have so much difficulty in defining. That passing-of-understanding was extremely fuzzy, and we didn't even know we were doing it: we only did it because it works. If it works, it works, regardless of whether we understand it or believe in it.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:35:32 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 07:13:25 amFairness as a concept of impartial and just treatment or behaviour without favouritism or discrimination, is just philosophical BS. It's definition is as unique to an individual member of society as their fingerprint... therefore, the concept of 'fairness to all' is the biggest smelliest pile of rhetorical BS there is.While I do believe that there should be equality of opportunity, there is no justification in claiming that the current trend¹ of diluting the quality of the 'workforce' on the grounds of DEI is in any way promoting fairness, all it is creating is societal idiocracy.It seems that at all levels of society, capable individuals are silenced so that mass mediocrity can have a voice. It is just causing enshitification of the first order.The bit that boils my piss is when I get some snowflake woke wanting to hold me up in public as an 'example' of how the likes of the title, or other positive discrimination policy helped my career path, but they don't like it when I inform them that it just wasn't the case, and like it even less when I attribute the help I've had to advance, solely to the middle aged white EEs that are now seemingly the target of the noisy minorities.X

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:38:38 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 10:24:03 amThere is no (single) solution; it is inherently a dilemma (or trilemma or...).Consider a abstract simple case with a direct analogue in the real world: two or more streams (Q1, Q2) of cars merging at a junction. Here are three valid definitions of fair (two of which are clearly ridiculous!):one car from Q1 then one car from Q1, rinse and repeat. Tough luck if you are in the much busier streamsufficient cars from Q1, Q2 are allowed through such that the delay in each stream is equal. Tough luck if you are in the less busy streamall cars are blockedbiggest car has priority. That's merely the natural law of the jungleall cars are blocked until the two streams agree on which strategy should be usedObviously 1 and 2 are equally valid and equally fair - but in each case some cars are disadvantaged.3 is also fair, but ridiculous.Libertarians typically advocate 4.Sometimes 5 happens, sometimes for good reasons such as avoiding "the tyranny of the majority".

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 11:29:35 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 16, 2025, 10:35:32 amI absolutely understand, because from the grumpy old guy viewpoint, those who have done the same hard work without positive discrimination remind oneself of being in their position,regardlessof the many differences in personal details, and makes helping and passing on the information instinctive. It comes to us naturally, and it gives us continuity. It feels good.Just look at how many stories there are about very different people finding a common interest or goal, and find a way to mutually beneficially interact because of that. The glue is the shared path.Take away the shared path by positive discrimination so that some walk an easier one, and that vanishes.Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 10:38:38 amWhy not look at past examples of these cases, and judge them based on their performance? The metric would be the relative flow (lack of bottlenecking), the statistical probability of accidents, and for the underlying "fairness" phenomenon, the occurrence of road rage nearby.Instead of trying to devise a "fairness metric", I'm saying we need to observe the results to find out if something is fair or not. If we can model it, good and nice thank you, but we have ample experience in human behaviour that we could look at to point us in the right direction. Why not? Why ignore it when the record shows the approach will not produce the hoped-for results?Note that underlying some of the political models involved here, is the idea that everything is a social construct only, that everything we think we know is just a social construct, and that there is no such thing as objective reality; or if it is, it is irrelevant to humans except as an environment. You find this in e.g. those who recommend "decolonialisation" of sciences by removing the contributions of the repressive Western patriarchy. Thus, not everyone actually agrees that past observations of human behaviour or anything else are valid at all: some people do believe that they can change anything by changing how people communicate and what they communicate about, by simply redefining the social constructs involved.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 12:06:49 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 11:29:35 amThe principle of helping the next generation was described to me by one of the most grumpy EEs I've ever met, (now a good friend and colleague), who calls it "Pay Forward", or "...to help and educate, because you were helped and educated".It's good to honour ones origins, but that wasn't the point exactly, the point being the Woke will claim victory for DEI where positive outcomes are in fact mostly in spite of it.X

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 12:18:04 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 15, 2025, 04:04:55 pmQuote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 10:11:02 amTook you like 3 comments to go from:"You want to silence me to I want to silence you."As I said, no intelligent discussion to be have here.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 03:14:41 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 10:38:38 amNo, libertarians would say they need to behave according to the contract with the road owner.In the real world there is only one biggest, that is government. Citizens and corporations can not act as if they have a monopoly on violence, ultimately they need to get along. It is authoritarians who dominate mainstream politics which are in favour of the law of the jungle, with an elected ape to lay down the law. "You must bake the cake, or we destroy you", "you must let them into your bathroom, or we destroy you". Rule by violence.Because it's rule by violence, there can be no compromise. We are all fighting to get control of government to beat our enemies, no one is bothering to try to get along. The right to non discrimination for some vague protected characteristics (for instance EU has political belief as one, while the US does not) was an over-reaction to the historical evils of slavery and the holocaust ... but have created a society where live and let live has become impossible.Great for lawyers though, who can try to divine supposedly objective ways to determine when discrimination is taking place or not ... and when supposedly objectively there is a justification for positive discrimination too.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 03:53:48 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 16, 2025, 03:14:41 pmYes, that is the kind of incomprehensible nonsense they would say.<rest of political rant omitted>

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 06:00:38 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 03:53:48 pmWhat's incomprehensible about it? Libertarians fudge a bit about how land can justly become personal property, but other than that their position of what government should be doing is pretty straightforward. Protect property, enforce contracts. Would be more apt to call it the Law of I Got Mine than the Law of the Jungle.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 07:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 16, 2025, 06:00:38 pmSigh. Here's the incomprehensible nonsense you chose to snip (presumably because you realise it is incomprehensible nonsense):Quote from: Marco on March 16, 2025, 03:14:41 pmWho exactly do you think owns the road?Exactly what contract do you think exists, and what clauses are there about junctions (especially penalties for breaking Ts&Cs)?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:16:56 pm
content: Since this discussion is rapidly devolving into extreme sophistry and hairsplitting (i.e., how much "fairness" can dance on the head of a pin)--but that's OK, who am I to try to derail such discussions?--how about looking at this whole DEI matter through the other end of the telescope? That is, without arguing the merits, or lack thereof, of DEI, but about the need for it or not?The reason that DEI programs exist at all is because unfairness, injustice, discrimination does exist in the world.Whatever you think of DEI, this is a fundamental realilty.If you disagree with this statement, then you should go elsewhere, play some other game.For the others here, once we accept this reality, the question then becomes:What is to be done about this unfairness, injustice, discrimination?This is not a rhetorical question on my part: I honestly do not have "the answer" to this.But this is what DEI is trying to address.How would you go about addressing this problem? What specific mechanisms would you propose to try to correct it?(If you believe that it's not susceptible to being corrected at all, or of you think this isn't the proper domain of governments or other institutions to try to address it, that's OK too.)Racism, sexism, etc., are alive and well in the world. What are we going to do about it?

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 08:45:55 pm
content: What about "anti-fairness"?In the team I work with, white, natural-born Americans are in the minority. Why might that be? When we interview for engineering positions, few applicants are in that category. Almost all qualified applicants are from other countries (and are well represented by women).Could it be that the cost of a college education in the USA has become so high that few Americans can contemplate it now, and can consider a career in engineering? While most overseas countries have heavily subsidized or free university education, giving a much larger pool of qualified applicants?Go look at the PhD programs in leading technical universities. What ratio are you going to find there of foreign students to American students?

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 09:14:43 pm
content: You raise some good points there.We need to separate at least two different things at work here:one being the effects of global economic conditions that result in an influx of foreign job-seekers;the other being any possible lingering effects of racism/sexism, etc.Which one is the dominant force here? If it's the former, then there's less reason to implement any kind of DEI programs, since the pool of available job applicants has become skewed towards a better-educated cohort. Which means they're going to naturally out-compete domestic job-seekers.You could claim that this is unfair, since those foreign job-seekers benefit from subsidized education, but I don't think that argument holds much water: if that's the case, then wouldn't the rational thing to do be to subsidize education here?I suppose it would be possible in an extreme case to find that there's "reverse discrimination" (i.e., against white native applicants), although that seems doubtful.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:34:19 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on March 16, 2025, 08:45:55 pmYou guys on the other side of that ocean, have the tendency to turn everything into a business.Even basic human rights, or healthcare, or decency, someone tries to make money on it. This whole recent nonsense is big pharma's invention to sell testosterone or estogen as a lifetime subscription for miserable people. Or the DEI industry, that charges thousands to give out trainings on fake history. Resulting job ads like this ones.I graduated and paid nothing for my university degree, for the best technical Uni. of my country. Even received some pocket change when my grades were good.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 16, 2025, 10:37:21 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 16, 2025, 07:13:25 amI have been imperfect in my description. This also applies to the following quote about the ephemerality of any current treatment of fairness. I think that there is a distinction to make between unfairness and the perception of unfairness. The animal experiments you reference are chosen to make an unfair situation clear and obvious. While animals may have the same nuance in perception of unfairness I haven't seen the examples. The dictionary definitionThe difficulty of perception of fairness is shown by some examples. Engineering and management employment for people of color, particularly those of African descent is widely regarded as unfair because a smaller percentage of those jobs are held by those groups than their percentage of the population. But in the the professional sports leagues in this country those groups have far higher percentages than the population (except possibly in hockey) and this is not generally regarded as particularly unfair. Or for another example professionals athletes in golf, tennis, American football, soccer, basketball and baseball get far higher pay than professionals in track and field, swimming, gymnastics and other sports. Again without widespread perception of unfairness, the reason generally being that revenue is lower in the lower paid sports. On the other hand, currently women professional basketball players in the US are complaining widely about the unfairness of being paid lower than their male counterparts even though revenues are far lower at the moment in the women's game. The women claim the revenue difference is the result of unfair bias on the part of fans (and perhaps the conduits of their product to the fans). But in a similar situation, members of traditional orchestras are paid far less than rock musicians, again because the revenue is far lower their. Is that unfair? It does not seem to be a widespread concern.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 03:06:18 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 16, 2025, 12:06:49 pmYep, I do that too, but that wasn't my point: I'm talking about the mechanism underlying that that drives us.I've seen the most closed-minded grumpy guys and gals completely ignore their social prejudices and preconceptions, including racism, when they work with some youngling that is doing the same hard work they did. I'm not sure if it is the "fairness" phenomenon or some other social species thing at hand, but it works –– not always, of course, but often enough to matter a lot. Yet, if they hear/know/believe you had an easier path because of positive discrimination, that does not happen.Quote from: Xena E on March 16, 2025, 12:06:49 pmThat makes me grind my teeth, because they also will blame someone else when they derail something and the results crash, never accepting any responsibility.Quote from: Analog Kid on March 16, 2025, 08:16:56 pmIndeed.My answer is to look at precedent to see the options. Social quotas demonstrably do not work, and positive discrimination only adds discrimination, doesn't get rid of it. It seems to me that the pre-DEI "color-blindedness" and "what you do in private is your personal matter" brought the fastest reductions in the negatives for a few decades.And, brutally, at some point (not yet, but at some point in the future) you will be looking at diminishing returns, with any corrective action reducing the overall outcomes. We will never get rid of all of it, so one part of the solution will be to help grow mentally strong enough new humans that can overcome the issues that are left.For the really sensitive ones, this can be a dystopic future, but it is just one handicap among many, and the reality is harsh: we cannot make life easy for everyone, or we'll end up like the Norwegian rats in Universe 25's behavioural sink.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 16, 2025, 10:37:21 pmYes, to both.Even if the situation is not actually unfair, the perception of unfairness can trigger the same behaviour and problems.That highlights the fact that some tools in combating unfairness is not changing the outcomes, but ensuring the humans understand the entire situation and the cause-and-effect chains involved, to clarify the perception. In the traffic examples, that means explaining in driver ed that the rules used are not arbitrary, but try to maximize the traffic flow while keeping everyone safe. In DEI, it means that instead of comparing average salaries, you compare hourly wages and work performance, and present those results as such. Instead of relying on self-reporting –– which tells when and how people have perceived unfairness ––, you look into actual events.You could also argue that we could use social engineering to alter the perception of actual unfair situations. We're already doing a lot of that, both in politics and marketing, but I absolutely abhor it.Once again, none of this is new. The historical record is full of precedents, if we only care to look. We used to propagate this understanding via stories and legends with archetypes.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 09:58:20 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 17, 2025, 03:06:18 amSuch behaviour is scarcely limited to those people.Have a look at the nonsense and lies Ayn Randian's use to claim shared space roads are always better than existing roads. Hint: they aren't, except in restricted cases.And, of course, keep an eye on the USA over the next decade

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 10:48:28 am
content: Unfairness as a concept can never be defined, except for the individual...Quoteremember?Trying to deal with unwarranted¹ discrimination against any group in society within the workplace, when there are not enough diversity candidates is futile because it is by thenJUST TOO LATE.Trying to bash square pegs into round holes will just continue the enshitification of the workplace and society.Any workplace that hires other than the best suited candidates for jobs is ultimately doomed to fail.Any prejudice in society is learned,IT IS NOT INSTINCTIVE.To address this percieved discrimination it must be done and dusted by a middle school level, just as introducing possible careers and offering of opportunities, otherwise the generation is lost.If then when all has been addressed, and we then live in this utopian society that everyone seems to want, and there's still discrepancies what then? Force people to take professional careers they're not interested in?Woke only further divides society. It is an evil obstruction to any solution to the problem of genuine discrimination. People are frightened of it... "...you can't say that Xena". Fucking tough! I can... it's a cancerous notion that should be cut from society.People should be treated as people, if you want to identify as Barney the Dinosaur, or a primordial eggplant thats fine, but you shouldn't get preferential treatment because of it.Positive discrimination, affirmative action, whatever,ISdiscrimination.¹ Question to any troll who takes exception to the notion of warranted discrimination in the workplace, I would suggest that for one instance physical or mental disabilities where it could or would cause danger to the worker or their colleagues, or where a candidate can be profiled as a workplace troublemaker... that has happened to me with one interviewee, and caused a real time suck of unfounded complaints.X

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 11:24:09 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 17, 2025, 10:48:28 amUnfairness can be defined in many manymanyways.Unfairness can be defined for groups of people.Unfairness can be defined where no people are involved.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:09:50 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 17, 2025, 11:24:09 amOK. That didnt go well, meant to type Fairness. But I accept you can hang any bullshit definition you like by the rules of characters created by CLD, however creating societal equality in reality, will not work... to misquote EAB ... "all are created equal, but some are more equal than others."Put it this way.Youcan not define fairnessregarding the topic in handby a definition acceptable to all, hint: communism did not work either, for the same reasons... jealousy, greed...(Youwaste your time Tiger, I'm not even going to try.)Best,X

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:10:47 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 17, 2025, 03:06:18 amI absolutely agree with this. I think that DEI and "wokeism" have made thingsmuchworse. We were making real progress towards a society where a person's skin colour, gender, sexual preference, etc, were completely irrelevant. But then "woke" politics - including Black Lives Matter - came along and set us back decades.I think a significant proportion of peopleactually wantto believe inequality and discrimination are everywhere. There is no feeling quite as wonderful as righteous indignation; no view as clear as that from atop a moral high horse; and nothing boosts social status or group identity quite like virtue signalling.I did my small part to help build a fair, colour-blind society (where "colour" represents race, gender, and all the other immutable traits), and it is heartbreaking to see that progress undone by middle-class virtue-signallers. This is not the future my generation (I'm in my 60s) worked for.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:27:26 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on March 17, 2025, 12:10:47 pmIn my limited experience...I agree with this totally, I've not ever once sensed or seen any unreasonable discrimination in my education or career, (I'm a 37 year old female), directed to myself or others, but I sure as hell have experienced the woke effect causing division and confrontation where non previously existed.Things have become worse: just a different kind of "worse".X

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:30:58 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 16, 2025, 07:57:45 pmWhoever holds the deed to the land its on, though they can delegate some of the control.Also pretending for a moment that it has a custody chain going back to first homesteading which for mainstream libertarianism (Rothbard&co) is the natural law which confers initial ownership.QuoteThe current political system isn't libertarianism, so how is that relevant? You posited that libertarians would prefer the biggest car has priority, law of the jungle. That's clearly silly, they want it in private hands with terms of use determined by contract.Rothbard style libertarianism really isn't that complex and calling it law of the jungle is just completely misunderstanding where they are coming from.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:38:25 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 17, 2025, 12:09:50 pmI've no idea what CLD and EAB might mean, but so what.You can s/fairness/unfairness/ in your statement with equal validity for the reason you go on to state..QuoteThe key phrase, which it seems necessary to emphasise is "by a definition acceptable to all".But the politics isalsois also irrelevant, since the point also applies in purely technical contexts, e.g. road traffic priorities and network MAC layers. I've outlined those cases in previous responses.If someone states "X is fair" without also stating "as defined by C", then that person is likely to be trying to pull the wool over your eyes. OTOH, if they state the definitionornote the ways in which the result will also be unfair, then that person is being open and honest.

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:39:17 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 17, 2025, 10:48:28 amActually, and by way of a technicality, I completely disagree with that. Go back millions of years, to when nature invented the "herd". A number of animals grouping together to better defend their resources (food, mostly). Being a member of a herd is advantageous to individual animals, but as soon as a herd forms it has its own identity. Herd members would fight off those animals who were not part of their herd in order to protect their resources against dilution. One herd might attack another herd in order to get their resources.The invention of the herd also brought about the principle of "belonging". You are either in the herd or you aren't. For most animals the benefits of a herd are substantial, so many species evolved strong herd instincts - a strong need to "belong".And that absolutely applies to humans. We have herds, but we call them "tribes" or "societies". In fact, so strong is our tribal instinct that we can be members of nested herds (for example, football club supporters often have intense tribal loyalties, even though they share the same society as a competing club, work in the same offices, etc).So I think that humans - and many other animals - are born with strong tribal instincts, because tribes, herds, societies - whatever you want to call them - bring powerful advantages. Every element of modern life has been achieved by people working together. Think what our life would be like if humans were instinctively nomadic!But tribes have their own identities, and tribal membership is a fundamental part of an individual's own identity. The price we pay is that we see non-members of our tribe as "outsiders", as "different", as potential competitors or as potentially dangerous to us and our tribe. And that is where prejudice comes from: if you aren't like me and my tribe, then you aren't one of us.Prejudice would seem to be biological.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 12:49:07 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on March 17, 2025, 12:39:17 pmYes.Since altruistic behaviour appears to defy Darwinian behaviour:Ayn Randians and libertarians like to ignore the concept, reasons and beneficial consequences of altruistic behaviour. The worse ones even deny it and decry it as weaka lot of research has been done into the subject, and some of the results are enlightening

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 01:34:54 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 17, 2025, 12:49:07 pmYet modern liberals like to pretend it can only be implemented by force.Lets take a Libertarian adjacent politician, Ron Paul. Lets take him at his word for a moment and not knee jerk towards calling him a liar. He's in favour of private Altruism, he just does not want government to force its concept of altruism on people.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 04:17:52 pm
content: Quote from: SteveThackery on March 17, 2025, 12:39:17 pmNo hope then, society is doomed and there is just no point trying to change it?If you are correct, then we have done well to get to where we are now.The Woke are seemingly trying to revert society to fractionalized groups of prehistoric ape creatures bashing each others brains out with asses jaw bones, for the right to do whatever the fuck it is that they want.(Rebels without a cause come to mind as a polite way to put it.)Quote from: tggzzzYou quote literature? Just fucking with you! try LC and GO.Aside: is Ayn Randian = Ayn Rand?Quote from: tggzzzQuestion:Do you think it is "fair" that an organisation should be forced to employ people based on quotas set by the demographic or alternatively from those qualified to actually do the job...My whole stance on this topic is to shut down wokism, and make all "personal protected attributes" irrelevant in the workplace where possible, and just ensure that opportunities are presented to young people early, to allow them to make informed decisions about their career paths... then let the chips fall where they may.X

author: SteveThackery
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 05:33:53 pm
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 17, 2025, 04:17:52 pmNo, I didn't and wouldn't say that. What I would say is that we humans are in permanent internal conflict between what you might call our "base", or inherited instincts, and the values we have developed as we built our civil infrastructure: morals, ethics, co-operation, helping those in need, etc. For example, males of most species are profligate with their sperm because they instinctively want to pass on their genes to the next generation. Other males fight with them, sometimes to the death, as they compete for their females. Those instincts are present in humans too, but unlike chimps or other mammals we have an additional layer of controls - societal expectations - that inhibit human males from sexual promiscuity. Or overt racism, for example.So, look where we are and what we have achieved, despite our conflicting urges. There is every reason to think we can continue to thrive.Quote from: Xena E on March 17, 2025, 04:17:52 pmYes, I absolutely agree - we have.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 17, 2025, 07:42:05 pm
content: Thank you Steve, I was just playing devils advocate.As for this topic, I would say that this is the top quote so far:-Quote from: SteveThackeryWhen confronted by the woke contingent I just ask them to not make me responsible for their expectations. The problem is that those willing to play that hand in the search for employment also want to be considered above other groups within the spectra of under represented minorities, so a regression to tribalist times could so easily happen... The veil of civilisation is very thin.Regards,X.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 08:38:06 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 17, 2025, 12:49:07 pmDoes it though?One is generally, first most altruistic to their close family i.e. children, siblings, then to their extended family, followed by those of the same in group i.e. religion/culture and finally race. It makes sense that individuals care most about others who are most likely to share the same genes or help to pass their genes along.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 09:29:03 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 18, 2025, 08:38:06 amOnly if your moral compass is not completely twisted.https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Heatmaps-indicating-highest-moral-allocation-by-ideology-Study-3a-Source-data-are_fig6_336076674The chart tells you what is wrong. People identifying liberals care more about random space rocks than their immediate family. It's just so sad. We are never going to agree on anything, because their value system is just completely backwards.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 11:24:43 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 18, 2025, 08:38:06 amWhat you outline is conventional Darwinism, albeit extended to include the concept of memes.The definition of altruism is "willingness to do things that bring advantages to others,even if it results in disadvantage for yourself"https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/altruismHence altruism does appear to defy Darwinian behaviour.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 11:42:10 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 18, 2025, 11:24:43 amNo it does not defy Darwinian behaviour, which is all to do with the ensuring one passes on their genes. For example, good man often does things which bring advantages to his children, pregnant wife etc. to his own detriment, because it helps ensure the survival of his genes. This behaviour often extends to wider society because humans are a social species. A single individual can barely exist on their own, so ensuring the survival of the tribe, increases ones' own chance of surviving and passing on their own genes.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 12:33:41 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 18, 2025, 11:42:10 amWe mostly agree.My escape clause is "... appears to ...". Your examples avoid the issues relating to "even if it results in disadvantage for yourself" and altruism (often extreme) in the absence of offspring.In any case, those who espouse libertarianism usually stumble when pushed about altruistic behaviour.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 12:53:11 pm
content: If you accept humans as a "monkey see, monkey do" species, but capable (although not usuallywilling) of long term planning, then game theory suggests that many altruistic or moral/ethical principles are simply excellent strategies for long term gain: not exactly forself, nor exactly for ones genetics either, but both with some "plus tribe too, at least a bit" mixed in.In fact, many aspects in religions and cultural heritage could be classified as different strategies.The current DEI/intersectional "society is only/mostly about different groups fighting for power" is a divisive strategy, which will only bring more tribalism and conflict, not less.We can see this in history. Whenever societal cohesion is lost and groups start to fight for control or political power or over resources, they eventually descend into civil war.There is one political side that does believe that any means of overturning the current "capitalistic patriarchy" are acceptable. To them, that descent is not a negative, just a necessary step in societal deconstruction, along the path of furthering their ideological goals.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 18, 2025, 03:40:35 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 18, 2025, 12:53:11 pmWe seem to agreeDouglas Rushkoff documented an experience that surprised him, later expanding it into a book...Quote from:https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularityWhat actually interested those guys is veryveryrevealing.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:44:51 am
content: Every single empire/culture will fall at some point. Some go quietly, simply transforming to something else, or quietly dying out. Some go with a bang. We now have more than enough "bang" in reserve to eliminate all higher life forms on this planet, if we so choose. Some truly believe that preserving their personal or group identity, whatever they believe that is, is grounds enough for maximum bang.For the sake of the planet and possible future humans, I'd prefer the slower, gradual transformation, over any kind of revolution or singularity. I guess that makes me cultural conservative? Socially, at the individual but not the group level, I'm utterly liberal. As long as we can interact fairly in a mutually beneficial way, I don't care about your gender, ethnicity, religion, or non-work-related beliefs, or even if you are human per se: I'll be happy to work and interact with you. That includes our future AI overlords, even though I'm not at all interested in interacting with the current LLMs or their output.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 09:15:41 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 19, 2025, 04:44:51 amLonglongago I read a book about that on steroids: Olaf Stapledon's 1937 seminal "Last and First Men". We are first man, and he charted the future exponentially up to 18th man. Each division occurred because of societal and physical meltdowns.Thomas Piketty has famously investigated the rise and fall of countries and civilisations over the past few centuries. Here's a summary of the very interesting - and worrying - observations and conclusions:https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/18/pikettys-productivity/It is also worth reading the links in the text, especiallyhttps://memex.craphound.com/2014/06/24/thomas-pikettys-capital-in-the-21st-century/

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 04:10:36 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 19, 2025, 04:44:51 amWhat kind? The kind which believes in freedom of association? Or the one which believes the state should micromanage every nook and cranny of private economic space to cure perceived historical ills? (Including non religious charitable organizations and non profits, occasionally the religious ones can escape when the judges confuse themselves).It is quite ironic that modern liberalism is totalitarian.PS. I know this is a 5 ruble army talking point, but the opinion existed long before Putin wanted to divide the west.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:01:43 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 19, 2025, 04:10:36 pmYou missed the preceding "Socially,". Thus: liberal in my interpersonal relationships and when dealing with any individuals, in the "permissive" sense of the word, not in any political sense nor related to political liberalism. As in, I don't care at all whether you are outside traditional roles or norms, as long as we treat each other fairly and as equals, not as oppressor and oppressed.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:28:00 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 19, 2025, 04:44:51 amNah, those thought in 2025 100% places you as a conservative on the political compass.You can be liberal, if you want to oppress people, based on their "gender, ethnicity, religion, or non-work-related beliefs".Same happens in Europe, they are importing the same ideas brainlessly, and trying to apply California DEI rules, ideas, grievances to countries with 99.9% white population. It doesn't work.Don't be upset, welcome. Others, including me, went on the same journey finding their political views. Starting left wing years ago, and then realizing that we are on the "right", because the current left is just mentally insane.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:37:42 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 19, 2025, 04:10:36 pmThat's true for libertarianism, but not for liberalism. The two are very different.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 05:43:32 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 19, 2025, 05:01:43 pmOppression is not an objective measure. We could almost all agree on slavery, but now we're far down the slippery slope with the subject a case in point.Are women oppressed by current gender norms and family structure, forcing them into an unequal role in society which requires state enforced positive discrimination to correct? Some would say yes and I see their point of view, I just don't consider the juice worth the squeeze. Using the state to try to force an egalitarian utopia is not going to end well.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 06:34:32 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 19, 2025, 05:37:42 pmThen you better define what you mean, because as far as I seeliberals then: we are free because nothing stops us from kicking the ass of anyone who wants to rule over usliberals now: we are free because that piece of paper over there says so, therefore here's a list of what you are allowed to think about us

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 06:45:33 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 19, 2025, 06:34:32 pmFTFY

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 07:50:32 pm
content: That's going to turn into another "firmware vs gateware" debate.FYI, applied orwellianists generally call themselves "liberals" today, and those calling themselves "libertarians" today generally aren't applied orwellianists. So if you think those names should be used differently, simply using them differently with no explanation pretty much guarantees miscommunication.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 19, 2025, 09:14:13 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 19, 2025, 07:50:32 pmSometimes I wonder if youngsters can't tell the difference between a "blueprint" and an "awful warning".Big Brother and 1984 were awful warnings; Orwell hated what they described.

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 01:53:20 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 19, 2025, 05:43:32 pmDepends within what regime you exist within in the world.A Woman living in some of the more oppressive may find their choices being limited or suppressed, but those regimes are generally oppression based for the general population.I've not found my choiced so limited that I feel "oppressed" but having said that, the relative freedom of the EU / UK has also allowed the Woke contingent to flourish, and the point where whatever crackpot groups opinions have to be tolerated to the point of legislative recognition, it then just restricts and subjugates the free speech, lifestyle, and choice of employment, of the traditionally "Vanilla" majority in society.And for Vanilla you may read any group who whatever their life choices or predeliction, just want to practice them in quiet privacy.X

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 02:14:42 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 19, 2025, 09:14:13 pmThe double meaning of Orwelian!What I see around me isn’t predominantly "1984" mind your head, but more an emergent surreal Kafkaesque society.(Kafkaesque as in his "awful warnings", not his philosophical existentialism.)X

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 03:59:25 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 19, 2025, 05:28:00 pmYeah, I guess so. I don't mind the label; it's just that it is extremely important to me that individualsknowthat to me, intuitively and instinctively all throughout my life, everyone is my equal regardless of their personal details.And it hurts being called racist and -phobic and other names, because they aren't true: they do not reflect how I interact with other individuals.When it comes to politics, I don't mind mine being called names or labeled, because that's just politics. Person-to-person interactions are vastly more important to me.Quote from: Marco on March 19, 2025, 05:43:32 pmNo, it won't end well. Plus, to me, "egalitarian" means strictly equality of opportunity and standing before the law at the individual level; not equality of outcome, nor equality at any group level. This means that I do not consider any kind of quotas or preferential treatment or positive discrimination egalitarian, but something completely different. (Equityist?)I do believe the "colorblindedness" and "if you keep your private stuff to yourself, we're going to get along just fine" approach has the best possibility of maximizing that kind of equality and the opportunities for each individual for happiness. "Utopia" is not even desirable: it is a fairytale, that in reality is a behavioural sink that leads to dystopic results.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 08:26:54 am
content: Quote from: Xena E on March 20, 2025, 01:53:20 amWhere do those gender norms and family structure stem from? Are that: societal/cultural or innate/biological? It's difficult to get objective data because one's view often depends on their philosophical position:liberalsprogressives tend to think it's the former and conservatives the latter.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 09:09:50 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 19, 2025, 09:14:13 pmI don't care how Orwell felt about it or if he was even being honest. 1984 was simply a frank assessment of where the West is headed.Of course it's hardly the first such example. There was the other guy who famously said that a lie repeated enough times becomes reality, and later blew his brains out in some stinking underground bunker after poisoning his whole family with cyanide.It seems every now and then somebody rediscovers the brilliant idea that you can change reality by artificially manipulating how people think about it.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 09:22:19 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 08:26:54 amThe answer is obviously both – simply from the fact that various successful cultures have had different gender norms and variants in family structure, but certain aspects like couples remaining together for the first five to eight years are always prevalent, making them grounded in biology.I'm not so sure objective data is that difficult to obtain, especially if we look into well-known cultures in history.Biological differences are well known, even if denied by some. For example, even in monkeys young males are statistically more drawn to mechanical toys, and young females to soft human/animal shapes, as observed in aBBC Two Horizon episode. It's pretty well accepted among evolutionary scientists, as it makes sense considering populations and gene propagation, but then, some do deny evolution also.Not all discussions are worth having. To me, the deciding factor ismutualusefulness, and that means both participants must be willing to consider the proposed argument and evidence on their own, even if it opposes their current understanding. Knowing that your beliefs and current understanding may not be right isn't that destabilizing: after a while, you realize it makes you a more full-rounded, more down-to-earth person.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 09:54:54 am
content: Quote from: magic on March 20, 2025, 09:09:50 amYou are clearly young enough to not remember history.1984 was a warning of where we should not head. The warning was heeded until recently.Your flag is "Poland", which was under the Soviet yoke for a long time. Be sufficiently humble to think that not everywhere is/was like Poland.QuoteYou are clearly young enough not to understandmodernhistory and psychology. That concept is never forgotten, but the means of enabling it change over time. Once it was pamphlets, then newspapers, then radio, then TV, now Farcebook and Twatter.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 10:45:50 am
content: Liberal is a funny and inconsistent political term. In the US it's used to refer to Democrats and most people left of them; it's almost used as a slur or insult in some cases. Whereas in the UK and most of Europe, "liberal" has connotations instead with generally more laissez-faire capitalism with limited regulation, a light touch state, i.e. more traditional centre to right wing ideology. For instance, one of our centrist parties is called the "Liberal Democrats". They split off in the 80s from the then-Labour party.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 10:59:34 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on March 20, 2025, 10:45:50 amI didn't mean it as an insult.I meant it in the social context, rather than economic. Progressive probably would have been a more accurate term.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 11:08:36 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 10:59:34 amTo be clear I wasn't say you were using it as an insult, just in the US it seems to be used as an insult. See, "libtard" as a related term.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 12:02:34 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on March 20, 2025, 11:08:36 amI've edited the post to be more clear.I suppose people got fed up being called fascist by progressives because they disagree with them. In reality there are no mainstream fascist politicians in the US. Heck there aren't many true conservatives either, just those who aren't progressive.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 12:16:48 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 12:02:34 pmThat depends on the definition of "fascism", of course. What's yours?If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck not a dog.Fundamentally, you can judge a person by the company they keep. Also, particularly in the US, by the notions they rail against - frequently it is because that person is tempted by the notion and is told it is a sin.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 12:24:50 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 12:02:34 pmSpot on. Two things changed. People realized that they are the majority. And the insults from the far left lost all their effect, because they were used wrong. This reputation destruction game worked quite well even in 2020, but today? "Call me whatever you want, your words are meaningless anyway."

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 01:07:51 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 20, 2025, 12:24:50 pmAndyouare perpetuatingpreciselythose problems, withyour behaviour.Rank hypocrisy, as per "pot calling the kettle black".

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 01:27:44 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 20, 2025, 01:07:51 pmCan you even say that.I agree. Also note that some right wingers characterise fascism as a left-wing ideology.Quote from: tggzzz on March 20, 2025, 12:16:48 pmWhat's your definition? Here's mine:Fascism as an totalitarian ideology, which supports: censorship, political violence, corporatism, ultranationalism, imperialism and the idea, one race is better than others. It opposes individualism, democracy, free speech and liberalism.Objectively speaking, there are mainstream US politicians, both left and right, who support elements of the above, yet no one who advocates for most of it, or actively claims to be fascist.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 01:44:26 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 01:27:44 pmBack in the late 70s I realised that the left-right distinction was misleading. A branch of my family observed thatthe far left gather in large groups, on the streets, in broad daylight,and beat you upthe far left gather in small groups, in back alleys, at night,and beat you upFundamentally the far right and the far left meet up round the back, and are as bad as each other. They both gain their identity by suppressing their identity(!) to a large group and ideology; they cannot think for themselves, but have to let others do it for them.QuoteAs per my comment above, communism has the same characteristics in a way that socialismdoesn't.Not just politicians; there are other focus points for leaders/followers. But typically such leaders stray into politics to further their "non-political" objectives.Yes, of course people hide and deny their objectives, motivations, and means. They are all ducks.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 05:38:16 pm
content: This is primarily for tszaboo and marcus; I'm asking them to un-confuse me.Is this an example of wokeness in action? ... The new International Olympic Committee president is an African woman, Zimbabwean to be specific. She has won 87.25% of Zimbabwe's Olympic medals - but I don't see how that relates to her ability in a purely political role.For the avoidance of doubt: I don't know the person, the role, nor the other candidates (Sebastian Coe exepted)

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 20, 2025, 11:56:57 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 20, 2025, 05:38:16 pmActually, any athletes performance in a sport has an impact on their performance in governing bodies. It usually is the coin that provides gravitas. A function often provided by wealth or family connections in other fields. I do agree with you that the athletic performance record has no discernable relation to the ability to perform the mechanics of the job, but these posts are political and that is all touchy feely stuff.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:32:52 am
content: Yes, a ". "PERSON". " today, at least in the U.S. can be simply in the process of the switch, BEFORE any physical stuff, is totally considered OK for locker rooms. Scientificually , that's a man entering a women's locker room, scientificually, no matter how we spell it !

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:45:04 am
content: Legally speaking, there's no need to discuss racism; You check the body, or have a Doctor check. Even if the 'dreamer' is unconscious the doctor can still state, with utmost confidence, the sex, upon observation.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:59:32 am
content: I don't know about other countries, but in the U.S. the 'WOKE' crowd seems to be only a bunch of 'white male' activists who believe they are giving an Xtra boost, to a (perceived) second class 'race'. Not a hint of equality of person...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 09:58:21 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on March 20, 2025, 11:56:57 pmI understand your point. While beneficial for a "local" role, I'm unconvinced w.r.t. the IOC president role.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 11:17:03 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 20, 2025, 09:54:54 amOf course it wasn't. You had no say about decades of feminism, you had no say about mass migration. Millions of Americans had no say about forced desegregation and what it unfolded into. You had no say about the numerous wars that the West fought in the name of "democracy" and often bitterly lost. No say about "Asian" rape gangs, no say about messing with foreign countries around the world with no good plan to deal with the fallout.You only had an illusion of order because Western legacy mainstream media were centralized and coordinated enough that they could agree to agree on some basic common matters considered important by all of them and create a false appearance of widespread consensus. But then Westerners go so high on their own farts that they started having visions of people genuinely freely and spontaneously choosing to believe the things the TV was telling them to believe, and so the (initially) mostly uncensored and (still) decentralized social media were born.The rest is history. Somebody had to pick up the slack, and it fell on your governments. Sorry, you can't spread misinformation about Covid™. Nope, these places are reserved for Women, and these for Indigenous People of Fucknowswhere Islands. Posting this rant on Facebook will be two months in jail, thank you for your understanding.The difference between now and then is really superficial. And so is the difference between the Western Block and the Eastern Block. We laugh at you because here everybody always knew that the TV is owned by "them" and cannot be trusted. Meanwhile Westerners still haven't got the memo and miss the good old days...

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 12:03:50 pm
content: Or I can tell you about my first culture shock in the West.I was applying for a student exchange visa to the US to intern at some SV company. That turned out to involve surprising bureaucracy, including participation of some "sponsor" organization which at some point asked me to write a few paragraphs about the benefits of cultural exchange and "diversity". That was a while ago, by the way, before the crazy 2010s and the explosion of "woke".Coming from the Eastern Block, I knew exactly what to think about it. Some arbitrary government bullshit, no way anyone could be taking it seriously but you gotta write something they expect to get the government's permit, funding and whatever. Normal stuff, right? So you can imagine my later surprise when I began to realize that numerous Commiefornials do actually take it seriously, and worry about gender quotas, "participation", "sensitivity" and whatnot.This is the difference between a non-free country where everyone knows that "the men" are against you, and a free country where they don't

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 12:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 21, 2025, 11:17:03 amThat rant is so wrong it is not possible to correct all points. I'll merely point out one minor example of your strange view of the world.I remember "women only" train carriages, but they were withdrawn in the mid 70s,at the time and partly because women's lib was gaining traction.Ditto women only waiting rooms.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 12:58:02 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 21, 2025, 12:03:50 pmBased on that and your earlier posts, you strike me as a profoundly unhappy person. That's unfortunate, and I hope you eventually find some place to be happy. In the meantime, you may benefit by considering...There was a person who was thinking of moving to a small town, so they went into a shop and asked the shopkeeper "what are people like here?". The shopkeeper thought for a moment and asked "What are they like where you live?". "Oh, good and friendly", to which the shopkeeper nodded sagely and replied "Yup, pretty much the same here".There was another person who was thinking of moving to that small town, so they went into a shop and asked that shopkeeper "what are people like here?". The shopkeeper thought for a moment and asked "What are they like where you live?". "Oh, standoffish and untrustworthy", to which the shopkeeper nodded sagely and replied "Yup, pretty much the same here". There are many places in the world where prevailing attitudes appear to be similar to the ones you express. I wouldn't want to work in such places, let alone live there. Maybe they would suit you?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:29:04 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 20, 2025, 08:26:54 amSome feminists argue that historically communal upbringing was common.Of course the problem with that is that the same community was essential for survival, sharing child rearing came natural. Getting back to that kind of family structure would be very hard in the modern context. Society atomizes us, you don't need your tribe to eat.It's not innate, it's just shit that happened.

author: NE666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:43:45 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 12:09:38 pmVery nice pun. First class.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 01:59:41 pm
content: Quote from: NE666 on March 21, 2025, 01:43:45 pmSecond class as well. I never experienced third class, except seeing it on heritage lines.(Good to see someone is paying attention)

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 02:08:10 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 01:29:04 pmActuallyhistorians(not merely feminists) note that communal upbringing was common.Can I suggest you would be happier if you lived in a place where that "atomisation" and "shit" hasn't happened. If you don't want to live in such a place, why not?Do youpreferto remain unhappy and bitter? Some peopledo, for various religious, economic, political reasons. It seems to give them a twisted purpose and objective.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 02:24:17 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 02:08:10 pmIt's very hard to do in a first world society, it basically requires a cult. Cults have other issues.Some communists dreamed of forcing communal child rearing, but it was never implemented. Kibbutz tried force on a smaller scale, but it didn't last.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 02:35:35 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 02:24:17 pmSo, you prefer the advantages of the first world - except for the bits which make you unhappy and bitter. You will either remain bitter and unhappy, or will try to force changes that make other people bitter and unhappy. Pretty suboptimal for all concerned, but it is within your power to improve that...It isn't impossible to find places where that "atomisation" and "shit" hasn't happened, and some of those places aredefinitelyfirst world.Why not go and live there - and be happy?This Gedankenexperiment has helped me make good choices in the past...QuoteComing to terms with that and dealing with it psychologically can beverybeneficial to the individual.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 02:46:03 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 02:08:10 pmNone of the cultures where communal upbringing was/is common were as nice as many make them to be.How many people remember that while upbringing was communal in Sparta, and they were renowned for their military might, they were also horrible slaves with majority of their population slaves?In Africa and South America, the cultures with communal upbringing are the same today they were a thousand years ago.Feminists also like to call violence amaletrait. However, our genetics –– especially male genetics –– shows that there was a significant and abrupt change toward war and reduction in male genome diversity when agriculture became widespread, all over the world. We know that early cities were built and had populations in the thousands, but very few lasted more than a few hundred years, with most having rather gruesome habits with their dead. It would be at least as honest, probably more so, to callorganized warfarean innovation made possible by agriculture instead.So, if you want to go back to communal upbringing, be ready to give up all technology and most commerce, and live in those simple villages until the next natural calamity wipes us all out. I'm sure it'll be happier life than struggling with urbanization and diet that we haven't evolved into yet.The only thing I know for sure is that every revolution leads to increased strife and unhappiness for at least a generation or longer. It is the gradual changes that seem to lead to least loss of life, and the happiest individuals. It's just that so many people are unhappy with reality because they have decided that reality is unfair and something is owed to them that revolutionary ideas gain ground. They don't care that in any other situation/culture they'd be already dead of diseases and starvation, probably as a young child. In my opinion, it would be more effective to look at both the reasons and the perception of unhappiness, and instate gradual changes instead of abrupt ones, because history shows those are the prosperous happy times –– although in every single situation you'll also find some unhappy people; we've evolved to be that way, so we survive and adapt through changes.I wonder if the first cities in prehistory became depopulated because they encountered the same kinds of urban and political problems we are facing today, and the simplest solution then was just move somewhere else?

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 02:55:59 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 02:35:35 pmThat is somewhat of a copout, not the least because of language and capital needed to relocate in today's age. It's very similar to "Why not just take medication or illegal drugs that makes you happy?".Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 02:35:35 pmThat is correct, and a healthy attitude. One should not try to enact changes by forcibly modifying others and their behaviour, but always investigate oneself and ones preconceptions, expectations, understanding for problems first. It's just harder than externalizing the problem: demanding others change, and using violence or the threat of violence and misery to force them to do, so oneself doesn't need to do the hard work.(That externalization is also at the root of the deplatforming/exclusion pattern. It is easier to exclude others than accept that while some of their output is offensive, some of it has merit, and requires thought and effort to differentiate between the two. Too often the result from examining other ideas is that oneself must change, instead of forcing others to change; and that is not good for memetic viruses like ideologies, it curbs their propagation.)There are well known ways recommended by many experts in human psychology, how to find ones own path to happiness. It all starts with the self, examination of expectations and hopes, long-term planning, and consistently working towards that, without projecting or externalizing the need for change outside oneself, asking for others to change. You are the only thing you can truly change, so it you reallywantchange, you change yourself first. We humans are extremely adaptive, after all, living in every single land-based biome capable of supporting large animal life on this planet, from frozen Arctic wastes to the hottest deserts on the equator.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 03:27:09 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 21, 2025, 02:46:03 pmPlease correct your attribution: marco wrote that, not me.There are cultures which have the characteristics marco seems to prize. I know they come with significant disadvantages, and I'm trying to get him to deal with that reality.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 03:31:04 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 02:35:35 pmIt's not me who wants radical change. Some needlessly divisive screwing around in the margins aside, the western world is still mostly shaped by classical liberalism. I think for the moment classical liberalism is the best we can do, aside from some niggles about taxation (Georgism). Any real improvement to the human condition will have to wait for the singularity.It's classical liberalism which gives groups inside the west the freedom to live as they want.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 03:33:42 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 21, 2025, 02:55:59 pmPeople with less resources than someone in the first world (e.g. marco) manage to emigrate. So could he, if he wanted to. But how much does he want to?When trying to decide how important it is that I get X, I've found a useful technique is to ask myself how much I would be prepared to give up to get X. If not very much, then clearly I don't want X very much.Hence, I wonder what marco would be prepared to give up? Not much by what he's written so far.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 03:36:34 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 03:31:04 pmHint: give sufficient context that people can understand what you are talking about. Don't snip important context: that is the refuge of people thatknowthey don't have a good argument.It isn't impossible to find places where your supposed "atomisation" and "shit" hasn't happened, and some of those places are definitely first world.Why not go and live there - and be happy?.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 03:47:02 pm
content: magic:I know what you mean, when Americans smugly declare that no media dysfunction exists, but meanwhile you have to endure some real damage, going on."Don't worry, ". they utter, "nobody is spying on you!".THOSE, are the ones, that (almost) make you chuckle, when they get their dose of reality (at last).

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 04:24:17 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 03:36:34 pmHow is what I do relevant to whether state universities should use positive discrimination? I'm discussing liberalism (classical and modern) precisely because I find it relevant.DEI initiatives like positive discrimination do little except screw around in the margins for women, they can not make big changes like life in a commune can (communes which owe their ability to exist largely due to the freedom granted by classical liberalism) nor the revolutionary changes of Marxist feminism. DEI causes more strife than it fixes anything, especially when state enforced.IMO trying to use the state to bludgeon ideological opponents is partly what led to the current US presidency.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 05:42:25 pm
content: Positive discrimination !That word smith is intriguing. Suppose I was to commit, hypothetically, a couple of 'positive murders '!Of course that's ridiculous but then, so are they, making a thing seem normal, when it is actually outrageous.The efforts to equalize things along racial lines smacks of a huge superiority complex on the part of white people, helping the other races that supposedly can't function or have built-in limits.Some problems are historic, so that aspect should be addressed, but seems like we are. headed to a permanent 'positive discrimination'.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 07:05:15 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 04:24:17 pmAny points you might be trying to make are obscured by your rants. If you became a happier person in a country that better aligns with your frustrations and that reduced your rants, then perhaps it would be easier for us to spot the points you are trying to make.You seem to have fallen into a classic trap: railing against the symptoms rather than the causes, and then picking the wrong target.I strongly suggest you have a look at Thomas Picketty's analysis of 300 years of foment and revolution. You will see that the state isn't the cause; transfer of wealth from the masses to a concentration in a few people is the root cause of a lot of current angst. In the US peopleusedto be able to believe they weretemporarilydisadvantaged millionaires. Now they can only see no end to their plight, and so become frustrated and vicious.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 07:18:41 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 04:24:17 pmNo. If they do this with professors, they are also doing it with students.They screw over perfect candidates to accept people that have lower grades. Not good.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 08:48:11 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 07:05:15 pmThe state is not the cause, but it is a pre-requisite. A large state made things easier to control for those few people.QuoteClassical liberalism works well when land is cheap and private land ownership not massively concentrated, nor zoned into uselessness if you don't own some politicians to rezone it. Even with snowballing wealth inequality, I don't think any revolutionary change will make things better.DEI is neither revolutionary nor indeed a cure to economic inequality period, it's just a distraction those few people were perfectly comfortable with (though I'm quite sure they did not see the current wave of populist blowback coming).

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 21, 2025, 09:29:23 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 21, 2025, 08:48:11 pmHistorically a correction requires some form of revolution (there are many types), followed by astrongstate that reduces the inequity/inequality that lead to the revolution.Read the summaries of Picketty, and compare with what you already know about the historic revolutions.Strong unaccountable individuals (robber barons, tech bros, dictators, messiahs) stomping on other people cause the problem. Those people's behaviour can only be controlled by a strong state. Don't believe it? Go and live somewhere without a strong state.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 05:30:10 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 12:09:38 pmNot sure what point you are trying to make, but I have been hearing lately that today in places like India or the US (lol) there are plenty of trains where plenty of women would kill for carriages free of menNot only train carriages, too.And that's indeed my main point. To be blunt, I'm highly skeptical that egalitarian fundamentalism will deliver on its promises in the long term any better than communism did.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 21, 2025, 03:33:42 pmYes,precisely! My point is that moving to a different place is unlikely to change things much, just paper over them, until they surface again.It's like the thing I keep saying about therapy: it's purpose is not to "fix" any problems, but to build up skills and fortitude to overcome them. Those who go to therapy seeking for someone else to fix their problems, will be sorely disappointed. It is very, very similar to physical therapy:youdo the work, and the therapist only helps you do it right without damaging yourself, like a personal coach.Quote from: RJSV on March 21, 2025, 05:42:25 pmThat's not as far-fetched as you might think. Many left-wing politicians in Europe openly state that leftist violence is acceptable, because it strives for political change; whereas right-wing violence is never acceptable. That leads to events like the Hammerband member accused of attacking innocent bystanders in Hungary (because they happened tolook likeright-wingers), hammering several into hospital, being celebrated among the leftist members of the European parliament, as they avoided prosecution due to the MEP immunity. We're not that far from murder, really.In Finland, some funny far-right types held discussions in libraries, and as their opposers came to disrupt it, it was the far-right types that were ejected for causing trouble, not the ones shouting and making noise. You see, "left-wing violence is different, because it is directed at the societal structures", as the Finnish MEP, Li Andersson, explained in a televised debate a few years ago.Quote from: magic on March 22, 2025, 05:30:10 amAny fundamentalism or utopia will crash horribly, that is absolutely certain.Some people do not understand that at the core of communist systems –– and even in the Nazi regime –– there are many, many people who believe they are doing the exact right perfect thing, and that it is justother peoplewho are messing with the end results. They simply lack theabilityof introspection, or considering their own beliefs and conceptions as anything other than the absolute truth. They weren'tevil, simply misguided! Any system we have now or in the future, will have lots of similarly flawed people as members, in the civil service, and as political representatives.The true beauty in the US constitution is how its drafters realized they're trying to create something that must work for "imperfect" humans, and included balancing factors to limit the effect of that. Compared to it, most other constitutions are written optimistically, with no concern as to how the constitution can be twisted and misused.(Here in Finland, the constitution is egalitarian, but is often simply ignored, because we do not have a constitutional court (or reliably non-political judges to fill one with), only a person, an officer in the parliament, that may consider any complaints, but always follows the status quo, whatever that might be. Yes, it sounds very unfair and I definitely personally think it unfair, but then again, Finland was recently once again declared the happiest country in the world.)

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 12:28:18 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 amAnd here comes the kicker. They were either:- coming up with this idea en masse on their own- manipulated into it by someone domestic- manipulated into it by some foreign powerI don't know which one is ultimately true, all three is very scary.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 12:52:36 pm
content: Those who manage to spread ideologies tend to be charismatic speakers and very convinced of their own righteousness. I don't like them, even when they happen to be right.Even the ones we today label as horrific evil were mostly convinced they were "doing good" by others. On the other hand, many of the ones we celebrate today, especially among philosophers, were utter human arseholes. This means that just because someone is a "good person", you shouldn't trust what they say will lead to good outcomes; nor ignore what a "bad person" says. We need to apply rational thought and logic to the message itself, looking into precedents and analogous situations –– and that'shardfor most people, especially when it is about their own beliefs or understanding.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:03:39 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 22, 2025, 05:30:10 amDEI isn't egalitarian fundamentalism though, it's just picking some lottery winners in attractive and government jobs while barely moving the averages. It's a dangerous distraction, loved by the Davos crowd precisely because it distracts from wealth distribution on a grander scale. Also the Davos crowd have an inherent disdain for the middle classes which don't deserve their wealth, that's where DEI impacts, it's only the upper realm which is truly a meritocracy and they feel themselves insulated.I'm pretty sure they didn't expect an orange bull wading through the China shop of the international status quo at the end of their master plan though.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:31:00 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 amThat's amusingly illustrated in the Netflix programme "Lucifer" (preposterous, willing suspension of disbelief, good banter). The devil has gone on holiday to Los Angeles (where else!), and has a therapist. Most weeks the therapist introduces Lucifer to the source of his problem - and every time Lucifer completely misunderstands and rationalises the problem as being elsewhere.QuoteThat can be expanded to many systems, with religious being the most obvious. Too many people yearn to be told What Is Right, and then to Just Do It.QuoteIt remains to be seen whether the US constitution is worth the paper it is written on. In particular what happens when the powerful decide They Know Better and select a suitable interpretation.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:33:51 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 22, 2025, 12:28:18 pmAll three are indeed scary. All three could be the cause.It is theoretically possible to do something about manipulation, but it requires a strong state to do it. Without the strong state it will be left to the powerful non-state actors, and historically (and currently) they act solely in their own narrow interests.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:40:56 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 22, 2025, 02:03:39 pmThe "Davos Crowd" employs many many distractions.The Davos Crowd is mostlynota meritocracy. A lot of their money and power is inherited, and as Picketty illustrates, once you havesparemoney it is easy to makelotsmore money.There is a small number of the Davos Crowd who give substantially to "good causes". The vast majority don't and won't - and do anything and everything topreventa redistribution. Only a strong state can begin to cause a redistribution.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:49:56 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 02:31:00 pmIndeed.It's also complicated, because all belief systems I've looked into have nuggets of hard-won wisdom, especially when it comes to human behaviour and long-term outcomes. It takes some hard thought to work out what is that, and what is say just current interpretation with the underlying intent of control others and perpetuate the system. Same with politics, of course.Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 02:31:00 pmIt was written well over two centuries ago, and served USians pretty well through those centuries, based on the results. Nowhere near perfect, of course, amended 27 times already.. just highlighting the main difference it has to others in my observation. I am not saying it is the best going forward, or that it even will survive these times of social networking and memetic viruses, not at all. I'm not a "fan", just pointing out credit where credit is due.I don't know of any better political system than representative and direct democracies, but even those can be horribly twisted by well-meaning idiots leading to dictatorships. These are times of change, but of exactly what and how, only future history will tell. I don't think anyone has sussed it out properly yet.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 02:59:50 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 02:49:56 pmOne problem is that humans are designed to find patterns in sensory inputs and beliefs. They do that so well that they frequently find patterns and create reasons for the patterns - even when the input is just random.A second problem is that LLMs do exactly the same, but people trust computer's infallibility "...because the computer says so". And with that we circle around to what too many people yearn for, as noted above.

author: jnk0le
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 03:11:44 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 amQuote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 am

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 03:26:29 pm
content: Quote from: jnk0le on March 22, 2025, 03:11:44 pmWhat is the point you are trying to make when you post an image of text stating "Anonymous...>And then one day, for no reason at all, the people voted Hitler into power."

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 05:00:44 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 02:49:56 pmDemocracies are pretty bad, and still better than anything else.I strongly have the belief that a democratic monarchy, with active king/queen is the most stable form of government. If it's a true parliamentary democracy, with elected president it's not stable. The president and the parliament will come from the same political party, and it can turn into a dictatorship, just after one election. We've seen this happen all over Europe, Hungary, previously Poland, Spain.With a politically active king he can refuse to sign laws that are anti-democratic. De can even disband parliament. Which should be happening in the UK, simply saying none of the parties are doing what's the will of the people.Also we are seeing that mass manipulation can do with democracies, where they almost elect puppets to putin. Eric Weinstein is saying (Arc conference) that we are at hybrid war, and we don't even realize it. Our democracies are being threatened by inside and outside forces, constantly. His conclusions are bit far fetched, as he was advocating to go to Mars. But even better, we have to stand our ground and start labeling and treating these inside and outside forces as what they are.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 05:54:57 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 22, 2025, 05:00:44 pmI'm not sure labeling will help much. We need to foster rational and logical thought, and honest open direct discussions.Thenwe need to determine the ones who are trying to subvert that and others –– doesn't matter if innocently or by purpose ––, and treat them accordingly. Everything can be tested in reality in smaller units, say a large city, before shifting an entire country to it.To circle back to the topic at hand, these quotas have been tested so many times before, and the result is always the same: yes, you can modify the group identification distribution however you like, but it always will impact other aspects of the workforce, specifically merit/qualifications/productivity. The only way you can achieve both equity and most capable workforce is by spending ludicrous amounts of money. For organizations whose purpose is research and education, those aren't sensible options in the long term: the only thing that works long-term in education and science, is meritocracy. You get the best you can get to teach and guide others, or you compromise on the quality of results.That said, therearesome cases where quotas can be useful. One I know of is preschool and first few years of school: many children nowadays are from single-parent households, and can benefit greatly from having good role models of both sexes. Reaching every kid, helping them find the way they can learn and find motivation and subjects of interest is the a primary goal at those ages, and having different kinds of adults to do that can make the difference.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 06:14:34 pm
content: Quote from: magic on March 22, 2025, 05:30:10 amThe idea of women only train carriages has recently been debated again in the UK, due to a rise in sexual assaults on trains. They daren't consider that it might be due to an increase in number of immigrants from counties with much higher rates of sexual violence and poorer women's rights.https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/women-only-train-carriages-scotland_uk_620b7600e4b03230246ffa56

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 06:40:56 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 22, 2025, 06:14:34 pmAren't we lucky that there are no native British bastards, and that there are no "incels". Are there?Them vs Us will always raise its ugly head; there is never any shortage of people seeking to profit from blaming anybody-but-Us. supply your own definition, and be prepared to defend it.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 07:02:00 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 08:58:13 amNot if AI is in charge.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 07:08:48 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 06:40:56 pmOf course we have our own criminals, but there does appear to be a temporal correlation between an increase in people coming here from cultures with poor attitudes to women and sexual assaults.There isn't sold data regarding the ethnicity of perpetrators in the UK, but statists from other European countries do show that foreigners are more likely to commit crime and there's no reason why it should be different here.https://thecritic.co.uk/germany-is-acknowledging-the-unspeakable/The fact is not all cultures are equal. People take their culture when they move abroad. Retired Brits live in ghettos in Spain, pissing off the locals by getting drunk and refusing to speak Spanish. Foreigners do the same here.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 08:53:18 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 05:54:57 pmNono, labels are important. It matters if you call people who set teslas on fire "protestors" or domestic terrorists. These things matter, language matters. That's why it's constantly under attack, and that's why it's being eroded by the leftist types. They are throwing it out all these labels like confetti, on the wrong things. The only reason to do that, is because when you actually going to meet a some of their eroded word, used the right way, you will treat it like it's a nothingburger.It's the boy who cried wolf story.Calling the woke types out it's important. Their goal is to destroy our society. That means schools, roads, police, military. Everything was effected by their bullshit policies, and everything was made worse as a result. It needs to stop.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 09:07:21 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 22, 2025, 07:08:48 pmLooking at who funded TheCritic and considering the terminological inexactitudes they have produced previously, it is clear that is not a trustworthy source.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 09:09:51 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 22, 2025, 08:53:18 pmLanguage does matter, and it is being eroded by the rightist types.It is the bully blaming the victim story.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 09:29:26 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 09:07:21 pmThere are plenty of other sources of information.Anyway, it's common sense that high levels of immigration from cultures with poor attitudes towards women, will result in an increase in sexual assaults. We saw the same thing here with the grooming gangs.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 09:41:16 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 22, 2025, 09:29:26 pmBy grooming gang, I presume you are referring to the Christian clergy of various variants. I know two people who have been fiddled with by them when they were children, and nobody from non-Christian religions.Those that rail against X are often those who are fearful that they are tempted by X or see X in themselves.

author: jnk0le
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 11:23:44 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 09:41:16 pmDidn't heard about this one?https://news.sky.com/story/huddersfield-grooming-gang-20-men-convicted-of-abusing-15-girls-11529579

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 11:39:06 pm
content: Quote from: jnk0le on March 22, 2025, 11:23:44 pmOf course I did!I can assure you there are many more victims of abuse that don't make the news - and most of them aren't immigrants. Source: someone who has met quite a few people that areseriouslynotorious, i.e. TV programmes are still made about themdecadeslater.Abusing 15 girls is merely amateurI also know two people that met a Christian who abused literallyhundredsof children over the decades: Jimmy Saville. Have a look at his wackypedia page, and you will see links to many Christian organisations.Bastards occur in all religions and walks of life. Concentrating on a small subset and ignoring the majority demonstrates poor judgement, ignorance, and an unstated motive.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 22, 2025, 11:55:28 pm
content: considering the amount of harm caused to civilisation in the name of religion youd have thought they'd have banned it by now,but then again banning something tends to make it more attractive.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 12:09:00 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 22, 2025, 11:55:28 pmGood things are done in the name of religions, and problems are not uniquely associated with religions.The problem is people: mensch ist mensch, the whole world over.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 12:57:20 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 22, 2025, 11:55:28 pmThen you'd also have to ban cubs/scout orgs, because for all the good they do, plenty of child abuse goes on there too.Have you seen the recent video from Iain Lee, it's quite harrowing, I won't link it. And I know for a fact it's true because a close friend corroborated it. About 50% of my close friends experienced CSA and I only found out recently because that video encouraged them to finally admit it to within our small group.By some accounts back then Iain was quite rude to people he'd just met, and bordering on racist as a kid, but now it's very understandable given what he went through left him scarred.Those that mention migrant-caused CSA don't often seem to mention any other CSA with the same passion as if they care about the children. They have their own agenda.In my eyes Iain is a hero, he's normalized for even boys and young men to be able to admit to it, and he's not trying to stigmatize anyone except the people that did this to him and to others.CSA is extremely common, and often never gets reported, because children assume their parents must be aware because the parents put them there, and/or are too embarassed to talk about it even to their friends, and for a multitude of other reasons.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:26:36 am
content: QuoteHow many wars have been fought in the name of cubs/scouts?How many have been killed in the name of cubs/scouts?

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:36:41 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 23, 2025, 01:26:36 amThat actually doesn't help your argument.I'm not going to compare the harm or volume of CSA versus the harm/volume of death in wars.But if cubs/scouts harm is limited to "just" CSA then why not ban it too by your logic? Seems very contrived for you to now just focus on wars and death, and no other harm..

author: jnk0le
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:42:37 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 03:26:29 pmThe moment that any alternative is much worser than the Hitler 2.0, the people will be forced to vote for the "smaller evil" no matter the (expected) outcomes.Things like afd or the man with curse of orange face tint, are not being voted into power for no reason, as presented in the mainsewer media.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 02:23:52 am
content: Ahhh, OK TIME TO LOCK THIS THREAD:'Orange Face President' (post previous to this).That's a deliberate INSULT to an actual majority of Americans (of voting age).LOCK THIS PLEASE.NOT acceptable !

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 02:38:58 am
content: Quoteno its not,its an accurate description ,although i prefer wotsit wannabe

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 02:52:30 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 22, 2025, 07:02:00 pmAny AI tracing its roots to humans will share the same limitations and faults. We've already seen this in LLMs.I do not necessarily oppose AI overlords in theory. In practice, everything I've seen thus far indicates they will suffer from the same limitations and bugs human minds do, and therefore won't be much different to human overlords. (I love the idea of afair AI ruleralong the lines of Iain Banks' Culture Minds or Neal Ashers Polity (or even human-origin Owner), but as usual, such ideas are beautiful and enticing, and completely unrealistic.)

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 05:51:49 am
content: Quote from: Marco on March 22, 2025, 02:03:39 pmIf you think about it in those terms "the point of DEI" is indeed driving labor price down and distraction. But egalitarian fundamentalism is the idea which made DEI possible and, dare I say, inevitable.Egalitarian fundamentalism proclaims that squares cannot be better than circles and therefore must be equal - that's the core premise and its usual justification, in all of their absurdity. If decades are spent hammering square pegs into round holes, it's guaranteed people will get tired and will start to question things. Then the idea of squaring up some holes is inevitable and makes perfect sense. You don't even need to come up with those ideas, you just look for them in the wild and throw marketing money at promising ones.Egalitarian fundamentalism is the core of post-WW2 Western mentality. All people are equal, as in identical, functionally interchangeable and "same as you". Men or women, doesn't matter, they are the same in a different "body shape". You don't need to worry about differences or think pragmatically about anything, just treat women equally and "like you (that is, a man) would want to be treated", problem solved. It's straightforward, it's actionable. It looks good on paper.And it doesn't work, unless by "work" you mean collapse of families, a rising population of "incels" of both sexes, and general chaos. And of course the next obvious logical step: if women can be like men, then men can be like women, and only nazis are allowed to disagree.The last point is interesting too, because apparently an early 20th century dictator is still living rent free in those people's heads and they are the main reason why anyone 100 years later still cares about a thoroughly defeated, crazy megalomaniac. It's free publicity, for fuck's sake. The intent is of course "if you disagree with then you are a horrible and defeated monster", but in reality we know how those things work out. If they keep pushing this angle they will get exactly what they talk about. The useful idiots on the streets and their "philanthropic" donors alike.I really don't understand egalitarian fundamentalists

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 07:06:29 am
content: Actually, magic, your statement reminds me, of a bit in the book, 'The Art of War'.It was; "If using A MOB to obtain your goals (paraphrasing):Then, thats foolish, as that MOB could turn on you,...lacking any real loyalty"

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 07:43:28 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 22, 2025, 11:55:28 pmindeed, not many organizations are bad enough to start WARS. War involves razing cities, wholesale industrial killing and maiming, ecological disaster level damage to the environment and massive cultural problems (insane xenophobia). They seem to be followed by famine and disease too. War makes other problems seem petty and manageable.When you compare a problem to war, keep it in the prospective of a leveled burning city with human limbs scattered about

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 07:44:42 am
content: Quote from: magic on March 23, 2025, 05:51:49 amFor what it is worth, to meegalitarianmeans something quite different: that each individual has the same intrinsic worth and should have the same or similar opportunities in life, but it is up to that individual what they make of it themselves. Each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses, and should be evaluated only by their actions and interactions with others, not by their intrinsic properties.Then again, I'm not a fundamentalist, because I believe personal competition/striving for personal happiness is just as important, because social beings seem to have evolved the need for reachable goals to strive for, to be happy and fulfilled in life.This just shows how difficult it is to discuss these kinds of things, because first we need to define the terms we'll use during the discussion. It is already what we need to do in every scientific paper or discussion, but most ordinary people are very keen ondefinitionsand are often unwilling to adopt, even temporarily and only for the sake of the discussion any other definition. Not here, though, because everyone seems to be more technical than social (and thus not so "stuck" in definitions); I'm talking in more general terms.I do not generally enjoy discussing politics and related issues, because even close non-technical family tends to label me based on thequestionsI pose. If I question this thing, I'm -phobe or warmonger; if I question that thing, I'm a putinist; if I question that other thing, I'm far-foo. I once got called both a dirty commie and a dirty capitalist in the same day by two different people, and even "the world's first socialist CEO" once. And a conspiracy theorist and foil hatter countless times.To me, politics is just a set of problems to solve, and I'm addicted to solving problems. In that case, however, the answer (in my opinion and experience) is not physical, but related to human behaviour, sociology, and psychology, so can only be solved through discussions and thorough direct examination of the stated problem and suggested solutions.I'd much rather listen to honest but friendly and respectful debate from proponents of wildly different viewpoints, but that no longer happens. TheARC Forummight be the sole exception I know of, but I only just discovered them basedtszaboo mentioning them in reply #262.In this forum, whenever Dave happens to allow a political thread, and I find it interesting enough, I participate not because I want to propagate any specific viewpoint or others to adopt any of my opinions; but only because I find these questions important and here the discussion does not easily label me this or that just based on the questions I ask or historical precedents or reputable research I point out. Mostly, it isa refreshing changefrom the current social reality (that at least I have to live in for now) where a misspoken sentence can get you labeled for life, and a wrong opinion will cost you friends.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 07:52:59 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 23, 2025, 12:57:20 amYes.Similarly those who ignore that important point in favour of trying to deflect it with a poor criticism of a minor point.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 08:21:40 am
content: -our civilisation cannot solve the human behaviour problem by itself with endless summit meanings , gatherings for discussion, politics , navel gazingthe solution to the problem is reconciliation with God that made the universe by way of his one & only immortal Son.this is the only way forward for all humanity. believe It or not. we are mortal.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 08:38:36 am
content: Quote from: jonovid on March 23, 2025, 08:21:40 amPushing or bashing a religion is a good way to get the thread locked, or get yourself banned.Is that your intention?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 08:44:59 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 22, 2025, 02:49:56 pmIt is generally a bit optimistic to attribute magical properties to paper. Paper is worth about as much as the people who wrote it and/or are willing to back it up in the present. A paper stays relevant as long as a culture exists which finds the paper useful, take away the culture and the paper only gets in the way of progress.Creative interpretations of that particular paper are already a thing, take for example the supposed legality of "affirmative action", so it's not "remaining to be seen" but "to be seen" right now what happens in such case. It's not very pretty, but it will be interesting to watch. I have long been saying that Americans are completely insane, but at least one thing I can respect them for is that they really are hardcore empiricists. They don't take "it won't work" as an answer, they will try it anyway, and then they don't take "it will work" as an answer either, they cut their losses even at a great expense and move forward towards wherever the fuck the future takes them.Meanwhile some other countries are driven by nothing more than an envy of post-WW2 America, which itself has long become a thing of the past. Of course they are doomed to stay behind the times with this kind of attitude.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 10:26:55 am
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 23, 2025, 07:44:42 amWell, fair enough, but apparently there are plenty of people preaching egalitarianism and why would they do that? Do nearly as many people say that cats have the same intrinsic worth and opportunities in life? It looks to me like there are some further unspoken (and maybe considered "unspeakable") assumptions behind the popularity of the idea, which more or less boil down to "similarities outweigh the differences".And even stated the way you state it, it has some interesting consequences. "Should have the same or similar opportunities" in a world of unequal opportunities and commonplace SOL can be interpreted to imply "open borders" for example, and "it is up to the individual what they make of it" could be stretched to "we don't even care about consequences of that". It seems to be a common unspoken assumption of egalitarianism that all (or at least enough) people are somehow inherently egalitarian. Otherwise this whole business doesn't even seem to have any reason to work.Given that egalitarian fundamentalism ignores and silences these concerns, I think it's fair to assume that they have jumped to some conclusions going beyond what you stated.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 12:41:12 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 23, 2025, 02:52:30 amIt's the multiple which is the problem. A monotheistic AI God has the best chance for a comfortable outcome, no need for it to be paranoid, except for extraterrestrial forces.

author: jnk0le
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:32:33 pm
content: Quote from: RJSV on March 23, 2025, 07:06:29 amCommunists knew about this and they are always (with no exception) implementing a very simple solution to this problem:https://youtu.be/-WGlEiHLHIk?si=k5TS5gEMVCPd27c_&t=3480Quote from: tggzzz on March 23, 2025, 08:38:36 amOne thing with those religions is that, it's the most efficient defence angainst ideological subversion.Communists tried to purge them in every conquered nation, and (till `90) failed almost everywhere. Succeded only in north korea.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 01:59:44 pm
content: Quote from: jnk0le on March 23, 2025, 01:32:33 pmUSSR stopped trying to purge religion end of WW2 to make it easier to incorporate new territory. Instead of purging, religion was coopted. China followed Stalin in that regard, between USSR and China that's most of communism.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 02:00:33 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on March 23, 2025, 12:41:12 pmAh, yes. The benevolent dictator. Yes, that is the best option - but only up to the point where it ceases to be benevolent. Then it isbloody awful.That's why anything equivalent is Not A Good Idea.Plus "benevolence", of course, is not something that everybody can enjoy simultaneously.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 02:05:12 pm
content: Quote from: jnk0le on March 23, 2025, 01:32:33 pm"... those religions ..." So youdowant a (destructive) compare and contrast of different religions? It has been nice knowing you.Purging is not limited to communist states;everytotalitarian state exhibits that tendency. And previously egalitarian states, too.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 03:15:34 pm
content: Quote from: jnk0le on March 22, 2025, 11:23:44 pmThat's just the tip of the iceberg.Quote from: tggzzz on March 22, 2025, 11:39:06 pmThat's irrelevant.The fact is, the government willingly allowed child abusers enter the country. If the they had a more strict immigration policy, none of it would have happened. No wonder they made such a great effort to cover it up.The sad reality is different cultures have different attitudes to things such as women's rights. People don't magically change their culture when they cross the border.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 04:43:49 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 23, 2025, 03:15:34 pmIt is directly relevant.You are concentrating on a small proportion of the bastards. As someone else noted, that indicates you aren't very interested in the children but are interested in your other agenda.From "Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation Characteristics of Offending", a solid report rather than a Murdoch rabble rousing source:Quote from:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/944206/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdfI particularly suggest you look at paragraph 76(d).QuotePlease supply evidence the bastards were sexual offenders while abroad, then came to the UK.And please concentrate on the childrens' problem, not on your agenda.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 05:30:55 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 23, 2025, 04:43:49 pmWhat agenda might that be?That government report is no more credible than some media rag. The government have their own agenda. It's in their interests to cover it up and make it as though their policies aren't to blame for this mess.Of course child most abusers in this country are white, as most people in this country are white, but this is about about culture not colour. The inconvenient issue is certain ethnicities are disproportionately more likely to commit certain crimes, such as child sexual abuse.One only has to go to different countries and look at their attitudes towards women, to know that certain those from certain backgrounds are disproportionately more likely to abuse women, than others.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 06:12:45 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 23, 2025, 05:30:55 pmSo, no evidence - only hearsay and prejudice, "my ignorance is better than expert assessment", plus an unhealthy dose of paranoia that They Are Covering It Up.And still being more concerned about the prejudice than about determining how best to reduce the overall problem.No surprises there

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 09:28:34 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on March 23, 2025, 05:30:55 pmAre you sure you want to say all these things?They've thrown people in jail for less in the UKYou see we can't have people having all these opinions about the "protected" class.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 10:28:57 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 23, 2025, 09:28:34 pmI hate to make you look a fool, but your incompetence knows no bounds. I came across this earlier remark from you:QuoteYou’re notably wrong, as usual. You have an extremely rudimentary understanding of the monarchy. Furthermore, you really ought to have some grasp of how laws are enacted — and, living in the EU, some understanding of EU supremacy as well. You’re an embarrassment to your education system.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 23, 2025, 10:48:18 pm
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 23, 2025, 10:28:57 pmI had similar thoughts, but didn't know where to begin with a response.Rest assured, you are not making him look a fool.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 12:04:06 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 23, 2025, 10:28:57 pmHere is a video of someone going to jail for a facebook post:https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ihonF-_aKnYAnd here is the law that permits exacly what I said.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent#:~:text=Even%20in%20nations%20such%20as,or%20on%20advice%20of%20government.Now go ahead and kindly...

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 01:05:44 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 12:04:06 amPreserved as evidence.If you post the correct URL which is relevant to that claim, then I'll happily modify this post.QuoteThere is no singlelawwhich applies to all the countries. Since they all have different legal systems and legislatures, it would be impossible.As for the UK, I suggest you read learn and inwardly digest the section on the UK. You will find that it contradicts your false contention - unless you go back >300 years!

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 01:32:29 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 12:04:06 amYou're ahead of your time, the world is not ready if you can grasp a full comprehension of multiple legal cases from a YouTube Short.More to the point, if you believe that _no_ Facebook post should ever lead to severe repercussions, you stand in direct conflict with the entire world's legal systems. Try to think for a minute about how written and shared messages could bring about an offense.Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 12:04:06 amAgain, more ignorance. You have no comprehension of constitutional conventions (and, the word 'convention' has a very different, calm, cool and measured gravity when it comes to the constitution, compared to what you might think it does; this is evidenced by actual history should you wish to learn it).

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 03:59:28 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 22, 2025, 05:00:44 pmThe British King does not possess such powers, nor does he know the "will of the people" any better than anybody else.As to disbanding parliament, his predecessor of the same name (Charles I) tried that.It did not end well for him!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 05:29:38 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 01:32:29 amSo you go ahead keep your position even after posting evidence.And your reasoning is that specifically in the UK once the constitution was ignoredWhat a clown.But anyway I am done with this conversation, it's boring and lefties are just shouting nonsense again.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 07:00:20 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 05:29:38 amIt's no wonder you're ignorant; you were told you were incorrect multiple times, and so if you were wise, you would have simply gone away, taken the time to read and learn a little, and then come back and made intelligent statements.If you're "done with this conversation" maybe go away and do just that because you need it.You cannot replace real learning with a quick Google or YouTube search and then proudly present that as Exhibit A.Simply put, your "evidence" isn't a smoking gun because it's clear you have an embarrassingly basic comprehension of what laws exist and why, how laws are enacted, and how constitutions work.Others have put the work in and read a little history and politics because, at a minimum, it's just a healthy interest in world affairs that makes people want to learn, so why can't you be bothered to do the same before spouting your mouth off?

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 07:29:07 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 23, 2025, 04:43:49 pmDon't trust the government, follow their references.Berelowitz et al, 2012:QuoteBerelowitz et al, 2015:QuoteI see no clear contradiction with what the British police was accused of doingThe government is disingenuous to even quote the 2012 study at all, which openly admits that its data are worthless. Not sure if they got much better data in 2015, I guess you can read it all yourself if you care so much about abuse of British children. These statistics are irrelevant anyway, since the scandal was about the police selectively refusing to investigate certain offenders and even pressuring victims not to talk about it "because racism".Also, note that these papers are not limited to "rape gangs" but also explicitly include voluntary prostitution and maybe consensual encounters between minors too; TBH I CBA to read all of it but that's the impression I got skimming maybe 1%. Admittedly I am unprogressive enough to consider all those things pathology, but they are different pathologies with different causes.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 07:58:18 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 07:00:20 amOnce again a comment failing to disproof anything I said..

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 08:26:15 am
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 07:58:18 amWere you dropped on the head by your parents? Or is your stupidity a natural talent?You've literally been told that refusal of royal assent isn't actually a choice in practice and the reasons why. And it was explained that it's impossible to get your case notes from YouTube Shorts.You were told what topics to study up on, too. It's all above in black-and-white.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 08:46:18 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 08:26:15 amWhen tszaboo restarts posting his nonsense, it will save people time if they are directed to that (blessedly short) video. People can then decide for themselves whether it is worth their time responding to him.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 09:02:58 am
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 24, 2025, 08:46:18 amMakes sense... I will certainly make a note of it to do so.I think at this point on this thread he's probably just into self-flagellation or something each time he pops back, and it's boring now.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 09:46:48 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 09:02:58 amSome people have mental problems, some are agent provocateurs, some are trolls. It can be difficult to distinguish between the causes, but we can attempt to minimise the consequences.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 10:15:47 am
content: Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 08:26:15 amI said, in case some dictator wants to overtake a Monarchy, a King can refuse to sign the laws leading to that situation (no UK mentioned).Even you tell me that it's not done in "practice" in the UK which tells me that you damn well know that I'm right, yet you call me stupid and names.You said arrests are not happening, I posted a video of an arrest, you moved the goal post that its actually good that they are happening.BTW you are going to my ignore list. As I said, I'm done with this conversation. It's soo off topic, and you guys just creating a flame war with strawman argument, misrepresenting what I wrote. You really need to learn how a debate works, but I'm not here to teach you how to do that.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 10:52:17 am
content: QuoteThats my understanding ,and reading around a bit seems to be the legal stance,that if big ears disagrees with stammer he has the power refuse to authorise any new laws and to sack the goverment off,but it hasn't been used for a good few years

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 11:34:08 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 10:52:17 amNo he doesn't have that power. You're entertaining a pedantic point that isn't realistic and you ought to know better, but I've already seen how you behaved earlier up in the thread.It's a general principle that you can't "force" someone to do anything, that would be slavery. You can't force someone to put pen to paper and sign their name to a law. How would you do that, by holding the man down and pulling on his arm?Nevertheless, by constitutional convention, he cannot refuse. And rightly so, as painstakingly established over time through the history of the United Kingdom.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 12:18:59 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on March 24, 2025, 10:15:47 amIt makes no difference to me!You do realize your action is just another example of how you manage to not learn from anything you're told. No wonder the state of you.

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 12:19:32 pm
content: Yeah; a FLAME WAR, but I don't mind really.My particular functional disability features heavy 'chronic fatique' that limits absorbtion in cases like this. It's the bulk or sheer quantity of detail that causes overload way too early!So, I skip over the bulk of text and attempt to zero in on relevant text:"Did your mom drop you on your head ?"Quote : "No, YOU go look it up..."...didn't went to shcool to read like thism.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 12:24:15 pm
content: QuotePlease provided a link to the legislation that states your view,because everything im finding says the opposite

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 01:17:59 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 12:24:15 pmI think you're perhaps wanting a written act of parliament on gov.uk, but it's a (not unique) characteristic of English law that not everything is codified in statutes, and this applies especially to large chunks of constitutional law and to what's considered the constitution. You instead have to look at precedents (i.e. trawl through historical cases), court rulings, consult historical declarations, or consult academic textbooks.And because it evolves slowly and in a measured manner, we can be highly confident that the king can never refuse an act simply because he disagrees with it. The convention runs deeper still, which is why it was so implausible that the "Queen backs Brexit" headline was true. And that's a minor thing relative to refusing assent.And because it's incremental you'd even have to go back to 1215 for some of the founding elements of it.You might find some elements in written legislation but for the rest you will have to consult the historical record (for instance for any precedent for the convention being broken) or textbooks on the topic.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 02:09:20 pm
content: no need to go back to 1215 ,5 years ago when doris prorogued parliament is enough to see what the constitution experts were saying as to whether queenie could have ignored him,and every thing ive look at so far say yes she could have.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 02:28:43 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 02:09:20 pmIf you've seen that, then that's implausible as demonstrated by the fact that she couldn't even simply state an opinion on Brexit. And you have to bear in mind that even at that highly unique, significant-legislation-altering, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime event, she wasn't able to state an opinion. So, King Charles refusing to assent to a law because he doesn't agree with the PM on DEI or volume of migrants? Far-fetched is putting it mildly.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 03:09:00 pm
content: Quotefar fetched yes,but from a purely legal point of view he still could.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 04:51:25 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 03:09:00 pmNo, from a legal standpoint, he could not. Doesn't matter how much he disagrees with the PM. Even once-in-a-lifetime Brexit events were insufficient for the monarch to be able to merely express their opinion on a subject.And you were already told this earlier when you incorrectly believed the King could refuse:Quote from: shabaz on March 24, 2025, 11:34:08 am

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 05:04:25 pm
content: It will be interesting to see what Brian does if President Chamberlain annexes one of his dominions.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 06:16:32 pm
content: QuoteFrom the uk goverments web siteQuote

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 07:17:46 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 06:16:32 pmCongratulations, you're now at the level of mediocrity as tszaboo with your p***-poor comprehension. You have not read your bolded portion thoroughly or at least not understood it.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 07:38:06 pm
content: QuoteMaybe you should try reading it as its almost exactly what i said earleier,he can sack off the government but its a power that hasnt been used for a long time.He can do whatever the hell he likes as he is above the law.

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 08:01:13 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 07:38:06 pmAnd with that, despite your ignorance, laziness in your comments, and dismal response to child abuse by non-migrants, all now documented in this thread, hopefully, future readers may still glean some insights into legal systems and constitutions, should they genuinely wish to learn more; because that stuff is actually interesting!

author: Xena E
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 08:21:33 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on March 24, 2025, 05:04:25 pmPolitical satire, SO refreshing amongst the verbal shitflinging into which the posts in this thread has slowly but surely degenerated.X

author: RJSV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 09:51:04 pm
content: Yeah, huh !Good to read your stuff, Xena !Have a good one.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 24, 2025, 11:36:17 pm
content: Quote from: themadhippy on March 24, 2025, 07:38:06 pmMonarchs are not "above the law", as has been proven time after time through history.Many former kings were forced to abdicate in European countries by a vote of the people.Even some of the "powers" you quote are limited in scope.The Australian Governor General in 1975 dismissed the Whitlam government because they could not guarantee Supply (in effect, pay govt workers & other outgoings).This, in turn, was because the Opposition of the time, through a series of devious acts broke long standing conventions, obtaining an effective majority in the Senate & blocking the passage of the relevant Bill.To add insult to injury, he then commissioned the Opposition as a caretaker government to govern until an election took place.But "here's the rub"he had to call an election!In normal circumstances, the Monarch (or G-G) can "dissolve" parliament, & indeed, does so every time a General Election is called.This does not "sack" everybody, as the PM, his/her cabinet members, the Leader of the Opposition, etc, stay in those positions, it is just that normal business in the Houses of Parliament come to an end, until the voters have spoken.Every power the Monarch (or G-G) has over Parliament really comes down to a General Election.The King cannot "sack all the politicians" & rule as a Dictator----that way lies the Headman's axe, or the Guillotine!

author: shabaz
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: March 25, 2025, 02:05:47 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on March 24, 2025, 11:36:17 pmI doubt he actually believes it; perhaps he's deliberately being obtuse to pollute the thread, or just drunk-posting. Unless he thought the Humpty Dumpty rhyme was a good enough education, he must have been taught better.Quote from: vk6zgo on March 24, 2025, 11:36:17 pmI don't know about AU constitutional law very much at all, but what you mention regarding '75 still sounds interesting, and something to read up on for me hopefully at some point.I like that there are hundreds of years of well-thought-out reasoning precisely why all power cannot be concentrated in one person, and that there are implementations that aim to avoid such concentration the world over, and how some are so close in principle, although not necessarily in precise implementation, that occasionally famous precedent from one country is referred to in the decisions in other countries too, through to the present day.I've read a few US texts just because a lot of theirs is well documented, and sharp minds like James Madison wrote their thoughts in detail, and are a pleasure to read (particularly because it's fascinating how carefully they were able to pull complex thoughts together, into something understandable).