4 ms·

Ad-hominems aside... That's clearly not an ad hominem -- it's not even close to the definition! And, the rest of what you said is even more incorrect. Fortun

Ad-hominems aside... That's clearly not an ad hominem -- it's not even close to the definition! And, the rest of what you said is even more incorrect. Fortunately, no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit.

TimTheTinker 9y ago
Insults don't add anything helpful to the discussion, and only contribute to further polarization across political divides.
- dogecoinbase 9y ago
  There's literally no insult in my comment. But, I appreciate your desire to reduce polarization by legitimizing bigotry! Keep on keepin' on.
  - TimTheTinker 9y ago
    Um, no, just trying to encourage civility. (Calling others' words BS sounds insulting to me at least.)
    - Fuckhndang 9y ago
      You sound like a little bitch
    - Dangisapussy 9y ago
      But you are a faggot.
  - dang 9y ago
    If you think a nasty swipe like "your bullshit" isn't an insult, you're mistaken about what counts as incivility on HN. Such flamebait is what we're trying to avoid. Ideological battle is against the mandate of this site, and ideological venom is a regulated pollutant on HN, so would you please stop injecting it into your posts? We all know what internet call-out and shaming culture has led to, and on HN the goal is not to go up in such flames. These rules apply regardless of which ideology you're battling for and how correct your underlying points are. In fact, being right makes it worse.
    - Dangisapussy 9y ago
      What is it like being a cunt dang?
- interpol_p 9y ago
  You label it a "political divide" when it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself, you are not on one side of a "political divide." Labelling it as such is a euphemism for prejudice.
  - jackfraser 9y ago
    > it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. That is an extreme mischaracterization of the views of those who believe in differences between the sexes. Nowhere does the manifesto author say that women are inferior or less deserving of their equality in terms of their right to pursue whatever career option they find interesting. The belief in question here is that there are differences, that they are measurable, that they have been measured - and you can find the data, with remarkable consistency over a hundred years of psychometrics research. This doesn't mean that anyone should be treated badly, nor does it mean that it would be reasonable to have discriminatory hiring practices. What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. And then there are fields that both seem to do well at. When you discover your field is not in the latter camp, you can either socially engineer it into being artificially equal, and reap whatever consequences you get from that, or you can accept things as they present themselves. > If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? Why do you need to put words in his mouth in order to have an argument?
    - interpol_p 9y ago
      > What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. Men are in control of these fields. Men do not have to face the discrimination and harassment that women must face to work in these fields. There is significantly less friction for men to enter and rise at Google than there is for women. If people were truly considered equal, that friction would not be there and there would be equal representation at the very top. Making that friction go away is what Google is trying to do, and this manifesto does exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll find many women who appreciate the fact that they are considered "more neurotic" by a male engineer at Google. Engineering is not inherently male or female. Women are not worse at spatial reasoning or maths or programming. Bullshit thinking like this leads to discrimination in those fields. > Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? By writing the manifesto he advocates for a system that would. By making the assumption that biological differences account for inequality leads to the thinking that biological differences justify inequality. (I get the sense that this author believes that but is just shy of saying it.) The author has the privilege of not having faced discrimination the same way a woman would have faced in his place. By writing this manifesto blind to that privilege — and then coming to the conclusion that it's "biological differences" and that women are simply "wired differently" — for why they are paid less, and in less senior positions, simply propagates the existing discriminatory system. A system which discriminates against the rights of others. Let's lay out a ridiculous assumption made by the original author: > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. This implies that women are less capable of dealing with stress. Most of my searching on this suggests the opposite, that women deal better with stress than men. But then, the question of gender and stress seems incredibly complicated and the original author has used a simple and blind assumption which favours his ego and supports his position. His entire piece is written like this.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jackfraser 9y ago
> no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit. I agree wholeheartedly! However, others would like to. I'll be over there talking to them; please find your way to the nearest safe-space where kitten and puppy images await you.
- dang 9y ago
  Comments like this are a bannable offense on HN, so please don't post like this again.

TimTheTinker 9y ago

Insults don't add anything helpful to the discussion, and only contribute to further polarization across political divides.

dogecoinbase 9y ago
There's literally no insult in my comment. But, I appreciate your desire to reduce polarization by legitimizing bigotry! Keep on keepin' on.
- TimTheTinker 9y ago
  Um, no, just trying to encourage civility. (Calling others' words BS sounds insulting to me at least.)
  - Fuckhndang 9y ago
    You sound like a little bitch
  - Dangisapussy 9y ago
    But you are a faggot.
- dang 9y ago
  If you think a nasty swipe like "your bullshit" isn't an insult, you're mistaken about what counts as incivility on HN. Such flamebait is what we're trying to avoid. Ideological battle is against the mandate of this site, and ideological venom is a regulated pollutant on HN, so would you please stop injecting it into your posts? We all know what internet call-out and shaming culture has led to, and on HN the goal is not to go up in such flames. These rules apply regardless of which ideology you're battling for and how correct your underlying points are. In fact, being right makes it worse.
  - Dangisapussy 9y ago
    What is it like being a cunt dang?
interpol_p 9y ago
You label it a "political divide" when it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself, you are not on one side of a "political divide." Labelling it as such is a euphemism for prejudice.
- jackfraser 9y ago
  > it's one group of people who consider other humans biologically inferior, and therefore less deserving, than others. That is an extreme mischaracterization of the views of those who believe in differences between the sexes. Nowhere does the manifesto author say that women are inferior or less deserving of their equality in terms of their right to pursue whatever career option they find interesting. The belief in question here is that there are differences, that they are measurable, that they have been measured - and you can find the data, with remarkable consistency over a hundred years of psychometrics research. This doesn't mean that anyone should be treated badly, nor does it mean that it would be reasonable to have discriminatory hiring practices. What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. And then there are fields that both seem to do well at. When you discover your field is not in the latter camp, you can either socially engineer it into being artificially equal, and reap whatever consequences you get from that, or you can accept things as they present themselves. > If your beliefs are about restricting the rights of others when you have those rights yourself Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? Why do you need to put words in his mouth in order to have an argument?
  - interpol_p 9y ago
    > What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. Men are in control of these fields. Men do not have to face the discrimination and harassment that women must face to work in these fields. There is significantly less friction for men to enter and rise at Google than there is for women. If people were truly considered equal, that friction would not be there and there would be equal representation at the very top. Making that friction go away is what Google is trying to do, and this manifesto does exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll find many women who appreciate the fact that they are considered "more neurotic" by a male engineer at Google. Engineering is not inherently male or female. Women are not worse at spatial reasoning or maths or programming. Bullshit thinking like this leads to discrimination in those fields. > Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? By writing the manifesto he advocates for a system that would. By making the assumption that biological differences account for inequality leads to the thinking that biological differences justify inequality. (I get the sense that this author believes that but is just shy of saying it.) The author has the privilege of not having faced discrimination the same way a woman would have faced in his place. By writing this manifesto blind to that privilege — and then coming to the conclusion that it's "biological differences" and that women are simply "wired differently" — for why they are paid less, and in less senior positions, simply propagates the existing discriminatory system. A system which discriminates against the rights of others. Let's lay out a ridiculous assumption made by the original author: > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. This implies that women are less capable of dealing with stress. Most of my searching on this suggests the opposite, that women deal better with stress than men. But then, the question of gender and stress seems incredibly complicated and the original author has used a simple and blind assumption which favours his ego and supports his position. His entire piece is written like this.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jackfraser 9y ago

> no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit. I agree wholeheartedly! However, others would like to. I'll be over there talking to them; please find your way to the nearest safe-space where kitten and puppy images await you.

dang 9y ago
Comments like this are a bannable offense on HN, so please don't post like this again.