The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

We don't "need" 50% of women precisely in tech. We "need" the atmosphere to be more inclusive considering most of the major pioneers in software development were actually, factually, historically women. Something happened in the late 1900s to push them out, or rather, supplant them with more men." Source that substantiate your claim that women have been pushed out of the software industry, please.

Sounds like they'd probably lose if sued in US Courts. Just saying.

Whether you believe it or not, there are actually very specific forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Those are, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for the chuckles of the people killing each other in trample, and, encouraging people to go out and shoot other people. It'd probably fall in contempt to the second one, which is "conspiracy to commit crime" or "aiding and abetting". It'd be one of the two.

Opposed to not agreeing with immigration law, which may possibly make you racist even, or it may just be what one feels to work on an economic or enforcement level (I really don't think it influences either), but doesn't constitute threatening speech or groups someone among Nazis or the KKK. Plenty of people have opinions towards immigration reform, it's not illegal until you threaten people or encourage somebody else to positively commit an act of violence that you'd dearly appreciate. Both are disgusting btw.

I've seen more than my fair share of people endearingly encourage the assassination of Trump. Just google "Do everyone a favor", those words are the most used with that request, and I honestly find it at the very least a poor stance to take.

"You seem offended on his behalf, which is weird. You should put as much lack of trust in his arguments as you do in mine. Wouldn't be fair, otherwise." When both arguments are backed up by effidence this might be true. However, his arguments are backed up by effidence and so far yours are backed up by "google it". Therefore, I put more trust in his arguments then yours.

"If you can't handle the sacred notion of IQ being questioned, perhaps don't rely on it in a debate." If you give me actual sources I will look into it and draw a conclusion from there. Again, "google it" is not a sufficient source. If you write an article, are you just gonna put "google it" in your references aswell?

Agreed, I don't see why to totals in field or work should really matter as along as individuals are not excluded due to there demographic.
Enforced quota's is just introducing a new from of discrimination.

Yes, and yes. You should probably put more effort into this.

The fact that you said "there should be nothing that stops them" shows that you don't actually have the knowledge of the scene that you're trying to talk about.

Google it, ta.

Good guess. No.

Women don't mostly work there, men do. They both make the same.

Then there are jobs that men also happen to mostly work in, but to a massive extreme. Automotive service, forklift operator, chemical plants, warehouse, industrial machine operator and technicians. Women do not manage to get hired in equal numbers to these, these tend to defeat the minimum wage by twice the pay, and all women need to do, is pursue the industry enough to get in with automotive repair or forklift operator or semi-truck drivers, and they'd reduce the minimum wage substancially, aside from trust-fund positions of corporate power. Trust fund positions of corporate power, are part of the "2% owning 98%" problem and just happen to include less women. By less women, I'd say 99% of women, opposed to 97% of men. If you can call that "female oppression" and not just "oppression". You'd be ignoring 97% of us bottom-class working men, but it's okay, that tends to happen a lot...

Only that governments shouldn't get their hands into imposing "atmospheres". No thought police please.
Women earn less in lots of jobs because their average age is usually younger than men and older people tend to earn more. Feminists statistics consider almost no factor, what lead me to think that women must be worse in statistics than men

lol okay

Have you ever recruited someone? How many people you think will apply for a position?
So you think you'll get 5 clone candidates one black, one woman and 3 white males (the lowest human condition). As they are magic clones the have done exactly the same stuff and gotten the exact same marks, so to decide who to hire you look at their genitals and at their skin colour clap clap

Having a more diverse base means you're more likely to encounter a different view and / or opinion on subjects, which in basic research terms is the most useful company makeup to have. If all are equally-qualified then yes, absolutely, pick the ones that are most likely to improve such things.

[citation needed]

Certainly, the white male ain't owed anything. I say this as a white guy. Though I'm making a mistake in engaging seriously with someone who seriously believes a "white male" is the "lowest human condition". We're about two posts from seriously debating "white genocide".

Apart from the fact that most of those claims probably are fairy tails written by the alt right media, I just came about a very fitting description of what you are constantly doing when you go "but what about".

Funny detail I guess is that strategy was invented by people you really really don't like. Communists. I guess the extremeists on all sides tend to use the same rhetoric strategies. Blame the others, throw "we don't know all facts" smoke bombs, derail the discussion in whatever way possible.

We don't need all facts really. We've seen an organized march organized by the KKK, neo nazis and similar groups. Wielding Nazi flags, screaming their hatred pretty clearly into the world. No need for more facts. Those people are openly praising racism. They openly show support for Nazi Germany-Ideology. They very openly support a genocidal agenda. Their leaders have shown support for driving cars into groups of people to kill them. You could easily just replace "neo nazis" with "ISIS" and they'd stand for the same concepts. Different intended victims, but the same thing really.
No need to put this into some form of relative light. They're to be condemned as hard as possible and a refusal to do so makes you an active supporter of those people.
Especially if you are the President of the United States and the Nazis show open support for you.

Yeap diversity in the colour of your skin or in your sex it's the only diversity that matters because biology is the most important factor that determines your abilities and shapes the way you think... wait no, that was my argument or yours? And now I'm a self genocidal?!! I'm getting lost in this mad hatter nonsense of yours, have a nice day!

My point was cultural, not biological.

You were the one inventing hiring scenarios designed to mock the idea of diversity in hiring.

In your example it is the only diversity that exists. As you said: They're perfect clones that have no other differences.

There is no proof for the fact that people from different ethnic backgrounds offer beter/different views or opinions on a subject.

Then again what's the point on having clones that think the same coloured differently?

no it isn't.

memorizing the most digits of Pi gets you the most points.

and it does not account for anything other than mathematical prowess.

Actually there is a proof for this concept mathematically in the field of machine learning.
If you have multiple artificial intelligence systems that are all supposed to make some prediction and you want to combine them to "work together" (typically by a form of voting or result averaging) than it is proven that under the assumption that they are diverse in their decision making as "individuals" you can get significant improvement by combining them. Significant to the point that if they're all just slightly better than random chance but very diverse you can combine them to get an arbitrarily good prediction.

Not hard to see why: If they all are different they make different mistakes and you combine them they will be able to fix each others mistakes. This obviously also applies to humans.

So hiring diverse people to work together seems like a good idea. So for once having many women and men work together is better than just men or just women. As has been argued greatly on the earlier pages there are probably some differences between how men and women think and operate.
The same probably holds for having people from different cultural backgrounds work together.

You tell me, it was your scenario. What was the "correct" answer in the first place?

I REALLY FEEL LIKE THE SITUATION I BROUGHT UP IS BEING IGNORED.

team elodea said Trump released a statement condemning neo nazis and KKK and I was like "two days late and contradictory to first statement but ok"

but now it's been two days since he's reversed that statement again
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-charlottesville-delay/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-conference-far-right-defends-charlottesville


AND Y'ALL ARE DEFENDING THIS

LEMME GET THIS STRAIGHT

The correct answer was not being racist and don't look at the colour of the skin when hiring.
By the way, I have much more in common with many women and brown, black... people from my hometown and school than with my white male neighbourg, maybe you should do some diversity test more advanced than taking a look at my face if diversity is sooo important.