More nuanced take: men are finally acting like women have told them to act for decades: talk about your feelings, open up, be in touch with your inner self... not realizing that only works for women because women's feelings matter and verbalizing them often enough will cause others to take action sooner or later. The reason men had the "irritating" habit of offering solutions is because it was inconceivable to most that you'd complain and expect that to actually accomplish anything.
It's like an attractive person telling the ugly that they just need to approach the world with a more positive attitude and good things will come in return. No honey, that's only because they want to have sex with you. Other people don't get shit for free.
As Warren Farrel said: men's facade of strength is their weakness, women's facade of weakness is their strength. When a man displays weakness, he forfeits his right to get help.
Two generations now have been utterly miseducated on gender by a feminized education system that treated masculinity as a condition to be medicated away and passive femininity as the role model, not realizing boys need adversity in their youth to prepare them for the complete heartlessness they'll receive as adults.
"But I love my husband!" Yes, until the marriage is over, after which he'll be devastated and pining for years, while you'll discard him like an old pair of shoes, still getting alimony, the house and the kids.
You're right. Just look at all those men telling us they don't feel safe because of what someone wrote, that the work place needs to be more welcoming to them, that being told they're bossy or domineering is insulting, that having to defend themselves in public debate is unacceptable, that they shouldn't be expected to choose between career and family, and that male hygiene products should be paid for by the government because having a dick and balls is just such a burden.
Wait no, sorry, I got that backwards. It's feminist women who do the female equivalent of this. And who find it deeply irritating if you only imply men do not exist to serve at their beck and call, and have zero obligation to them even if they damsel.
And no, not all women. But definitely even some who do have all the power, money and influence they could want. So who's fragile? Or perhaps more accurately: who succeeds in using their facade of weakness as a lever of power, time and time again?
I don't mind admitting the world is not fair, but it takes a special kind of obliviousness to look at women's position in the West in the 21st century and still see a class of victims and men as the ones who need to suck in their gut and soldier on for once.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's a serious abuse because it destroys the intellectual curiosity this place exists for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
although I genuinely couldn't tell if the responder was being serious, I think it's a shame the account was banned. I respect the decision, but I think it's a mistake to equate incoherence with ideology.
I feel duty-bound to engage patiently with people with whom I disagree, but I understand that this might be inconsistent with the more general goal of running a forum.
It gets rather simple pretty quickly if you look at the site as a whole: accounts that repeatedly post like that one did have a destructive effect on the community, just like fire has on a town. We know it's mostly unintentional, but the flames don't burn less for that reason. We want the town to survive, so we can't let people do this here.
The analogy is good in another way too: we don't care what color the flames are, or what was used to start them. People sometimes complain that we moderate red flames more than blue and vice versa, but the issue is the same in both cases.
Okay. Since the original point — as I understood it — was on the deep seated, institutional racism, racial inequality and how we are oblivious to it — do you mind making your point a bit more clear?
I really don’t get what you are saying. I understand you have a point to make on whether or not women are the biggest victims today — but what is the link to the post?
"Centuries of privilege" is the kind of idiocy only a sheltered American suburbanite could come up with.
A century ago millions of young white men were too busy dying in trenches and being gassed to death with mustard gas in a war none of them could vote on.
Children worked on the field, in factories, and in coal mines, like their fathers were expected to.
And yes, women stayed home and took care of the kids because without electricity, plumbing, appliances, refrigeration and cheap groceries, that was actually a laborious full time job, and people were poor. Not to mention that getting through child birth and infant mortality was a blessing for both mother and child.
None of them were given opportunities simply by existing. On the other hand, providing scholarships to specific ethnicities, or creating special women-only pathways to entry, that is exactly that.
What people like Damore have tried to point out is that expecting demographics and sentiment within a field to match the general population, or else the "playing field" is not level, is an unwarranted assumption. It also puts the blame for actually society wide issues on a small group of people who had nothing to do with it.
If you want more black people in tech, start by addressing the way the US school system is stratified entirely by social class. Maybe you'll see a difference, and maybe that IQ gap will shrink. Maybe it won't, and what new "leveling" policies will you want to introduce then? Don't push out or disadvantage others out of misplaced revenge, and don't cite your American tunnel vision as justification.
> the kind of idiocy only a sheltered American suburbanite
Regardless of your view on a divisive issue, you can't break the HN guidelines like this when commenting here. Please read
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do it again.
When someone suggests an enterprise CMS, the usual best case outcome is to go back to the requirements analysis and remove enough requirements until an enterprise CMS is not required.
I've done my fair share of work on the things over the years and the outcome has never been the best one for the organisation.
Lets see, my Wordpress install running a well known theme, using Wordfence to alert for plugin updates, with me keeping an eye on it cost about £2,000 to set up and has ongoing costs of about £1,000 a year.
No. Its not cheaper to hire someone to hand-code the site and then hand-code every change.
People keep trying to make it so you can build complex sites and applications without coding, and in the end, what you end up with is far more complicated, fragile and inflexible than if you had just stuck with a normal development pipeline. Drupal's insistence on being both a product and a platform out of the box is what got them into this mess in the first place. They overestimated how much different use cases have in common, so they had to bolt on late-binding and lazy evaluation all the way up into the presentation layer.
I don't know if this is solvable. A CMS is complex enough that each of its functionalities deserves the care of good product and technical designers. These pieces ought to then be integrated into a cohesive whole, a la carte. For desktop software, we were able to pull this off pretty well, with 2000s OS X as the most cohesive, successful attempt, dictated by strong design guidelines and solid enough tech... And note that they invisibly transitioned CPU architecture along the way! But when online collaboration and multi device access became a requirement, everyone flailed and forgot the lessons of the past.
I don't think the current software market is capable of something like that. Almost everyone is trying to make captive SaaS where compatibility only exists on a service-to-service basis, in a subordinate manner. Branding is more important than cohesion, and flexibility and interoperability has taken a back seat to dumbing down.
Alternative explanation: if they actually go after Facebook all the previous shady shit US politicians have done would also come into question. So they'll stick to emotive appeals like "when elections are meddled with" instead of specific, measurable outcomes.
Recall that the Obama campaign got the explicit go ahead from FB to violate their privacy policy, and built up equally large databases. Heck, recall Obama explicitly endorsing Macron. Does that count as large scale meddling?
What's hilarious is that the same people worried about internet driven misinformation are now the ones jumping into action because the media told them to #deletefacebook.
The presumption of bad faith is both a lack of imagination and a lack of information. The person cannot imagine how a reasonable person might believe something, and why they might believe it.
The accusation of sexism is a perfectly good example, with James Damore as the case study. His words were twisted into things he didn't say, because his uncharitable opponents couldn't imagine that he was simply saying what he was saying. No, no, he must be dogwhistling something far worse, it cannot simply be that their own premises are too narrow, that their own value judgements are coloring their reading.
As for ethics in journalism, I'm one of those "deplorables" too, and you know why? Because there were 100x more people talking and emailing about that then were causing amok on Twitter. If the black bloc shows up at a protest, you don't suddenly dismiss everyone else as car torchers and bus stop smashers. But that's exactly what the press did to gamers, and that's why they were so pissed off. And the more they wanted to be heard, the more fringe behavior there was to point to to support the foregone conclusion. When the police does it at the G20 and calls it kettling, the progressives don't like it, but when they do it, it's just fine.
What's particularly galling is that none of this was new: the online harassment, the doxing, the stalking, that was pioneered on Something Awful's leftie forums like Helldump and LF. And lo and behold, those people ended up in media cliques like Weird Twitter. Pots calling kettles black is not a new concept, it's just amazing they fooled so many into defending their incestuous little circle. History has been rewritten, and now apparently online trolls never existed until 2014, when the fire nation attacked, and everyone of import got amnesia.
Here is what I saw. To change my mind, you'd have to prove that there was a massive invisible shadow campaign that could somehow eclipse hundreds of thousands of views, posts and tweets:
Mozilla is like a modern American university. There is a parasitic growth attached that is only concerned with funneling more resources to itself in the form of bureaucrats and intersectional evangelists.
Democracy is in danger because publishers, large and small, lack the discipline and expertise to produce objective, quality reporting, and give a voice to people with something interesting to say.
Nobody forced them to chase clickbait or spend their days sourcing stories from Twitter and Tumblr. That's all on them.
And before you think that's an exaggeration, I'm talking about one of my (European) country's major national papers whose daily front page now consists of breathless American political drama, hashtags and gender politics. It's ridiculous, the children are running the show, the writing is atrocious, and their world view is about as sophisticated as a first year pol-sci major who's never held a real job.
Get those people to shut up and we'll be far better off. I look forward to their tears. If their content was worth it, they wouldn't be struggling.
Your Honour, the courtroom is a crucible. In it we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the truth for all time. Now, sooner or later, this man or others like him will succeed in replicating Commander Data. And the decision you reach here today will determine how we will regard this creation of our genius. It will reveal the kind of a people we are, what he is destined to be. It will reach far beyond this courtroom and this one android. It could significantly redefine the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom, expanding them for some, savagely curtailing them for others. Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery? Your Honour, Starfleet was founded to seek out new life. Well, there it sits. Waiting. You wanted a chance to make law. Well, here it is. Make a good one.
There is a noticeable gap in all this chatter about toxic masculinity. We're told that it's adolescent and immature male behavior, the worst of a roomful of teenage boys.
Ok.
So let's look at what the worst teenage girls get up to...
- Queen Bee'ing and passive aggressive social dominance games.
- Whisper campaigns, slut shaming and going behind people's backs.
- Crab bucket mentality, obsession over relative status and appearances.
- Recruiting authority figures to whitewash cry-bullying and enact revenge.
Now, does that remind you of anything that's been happening on the internet in recent years? Consider this: the supposed plague of online harassment aimed at women, typified by anonymous sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica and Kiwifarms... Does that sound like something angry teenage boys would do, or angry teenage girls?
The toxic femininity was coming from inside the house all along. And the fact that those two words are never uttered together by supposed gender specialists ought to tell you something too.
Agreed, there is toxic behaviour from both male and female. What is not recognised is that this behaviour has been around for millenia. Male and female are quite different, even if there is a crossover of interests. The worst characteristics of humanity are shown by both male and female. I have seen mothers train their sons to be the worst of men and I have seen fathers train their daughters to the worst of women. I have seen both mothers and fathers train their sons and daughters to be the best they can be without the sons losing their masculinity nor the daughters their femininity.
How males look at a situation is often quite different to how females look at the same situation. The problem here is not they they see it differently but that there is this thing in our society today that says the male outlook is wrong.
To see something in a different light means that it is possible to see a bigger picture here. I have worked in many different environments where there have been varying ratios of male to female. The environments that operated best took notice of the inputs from all involved.
The tasks and interests that each of us has and does do not define how masculine or feminine we may be. Being masculine as a male or feminine as a female does not dictate the kinds of activities you do.
Too often today, men are automatically seen as dangerous even when coming to the defence of children that are in distress. It is usually assumed that the distress of the child or young person has been caused by the male coming to help. This says more about the symptomatic problems in today's society that a male cannot come to the defence of children and young people.
We have lost so much in trying to remove male masculinity. The number of times I have heard women of all ages complain about where the men have gone and yet they do not see that the removal of masculinity of males is a result of what they are calling for.
Men and women are not equivalent. They are the two sides of a stable complete society. Both are required and both are necessary for a society to function properly. When dominance by one at the expense of the other only leads to trouble. Each provides what the other doesn't have and only as a unit do we see a completeness that is truly profound.
We have societies in which a donkey is more important than a female and injustice runs rife through such. We have societies where the males are considered to be the worst of the worst, lower than the wild beasts of the field and injustice runs rife through such. When the preciousness of both male and female is highlighted then we see justice.
It's like an attractive person telling the ugly that they just need to approach the world with a more positive attitude and good things will come in return. No honey, that's only because they want to have sex with you. Other people don't get shit for free.
As Warren Farrel said: men's facade of strength is their weakness, women's facade of weakness is their strength. When a man displays weakness, he forfeits his right to get help.
Two generations now have been utterly miseducated on gender by a feminized education system that treated masculinity as a condition to be medicated away and passive femininity as the role model, not realizing boys need adversity in their youth to prepare them for the complete heartlessness they'll receive as adults.
"But I love my husband!" Yes, until the marriage is over, after which he'll be devastated and pining for years, while you'll discard him like an old pair of shoes, still getting alimony, the house and the kids.