4 ms·

I couldn't help but wonder while reading this comment--have you ever experienced any sort of discrimination or are you a member of any minority group (person of

by Rariel 16y ago

I couldn't help but wonder while reading this comment--have you ever experienced any sort of discrimination or are you a member of any minority group (person of color, gay, non-christian, etc.)? "Life isn't fair and people with treat you unfairly. No this doesn't entitle you to special treatment." Who is asking for special treatment? Women just don't want to be discriminated against because of their gender--how do you get special treatment from that? Additionally your logic is flawed--just because you have never heard anybody complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And please explain how men being four times more likely to be murdered and ten times as many are in jail ( I'd love you to site where you came up with those statistics and their methodology in obtaining them btw) makes men "inherently inferior?"

sosuke 16y ago
A quick Google pulled up the Wikipedia article on Incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration) which actually puts the males at a lower 7 times more likely than women. Here are the stats for 2005 on murder citing men as 4 times more likely to be murdered. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm
- Rariel 16y ago
  Thanks but I was truly interested in finding out where OP got these stats from, meaning did he also do a quick google search or does he just know these things. I mentioned methodology in my post because that (to me) is the most important part of validating any statistics. My UG education was in a social science so I pay attention to those types of things. Stuff like this "Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The general analyses excluded deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. " So we're saying vehicular manslaughter and shooting somebody in the head are the same while in reality they are completely different. Would you say that if you accidentally kill hit somebody and they die this is a murder? I wouldn't. But those cases get tacked on and divided and put through algorithms under the auspice of nurder. Additionally this "While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. " So they guess based on what they do know, I have a problem with that. "In other words, offender profiles for unsolved crimes are estimated based on the offender profiles in solved cases matched on victim age, sex, and race; circumstances of the homicide; location of the homicide; and gun involvement; as well as year. All offender-based estimates were imputed using this procedure. " Those are only a few excerpts that cast doubt on the true validity of the DOJ stats. We have an obsession in this society with quantifying things, even when they can't really be put in to nice little statistics.
- johngalt 16y ago
  I don't know why the caption says 7x From the table in 2003 male/female incarcerated: 1,316,495/92,785
johngalt 16y ago
Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less? The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. See my other comment about how I'd never partner with anyone whom acted in this manner. There will always be someone that doesn't like you for no good reason male or female. If you look you'll always find a few bad apples. The special treatment is expecting everyone will be nice to you because otherwise it's "discrimination". Men get taken advantage of too, but that doesn't excuse what is effectively a hit piece on an entire industry. "Additionally your logic is flawed--just because you have never heard anybody complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen." This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this. Compared to the cacophony of articles lamenting that the geeks are making money and they are all male! I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it.
- Rariel 16y ago
  "Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less?" I find it interesting you said you have experience with discrimination and not that you are a member of a minority group, that's what I asked--not whether you've been discriminated against. As a person who has been discriminated against, I find it completely pointless to say my suffering is worse than anothers--how would I know since I've never experienced it? I challenge you to think of the same thing in regards to this. Moreover, I never said that it would make your point +/- valid, you created that premise on your own. Your post hardly seemed like it came from somebody who has suffered discrimination, def not on the level you claim. "The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. " This assumes you're only going to run in to a few bad apples. Have you stopped to consider it may be way more than a few in this instance? Perhaps it is a systematic and continual thing. "This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this." Again, you've applied your own ideas to my words--I said that just because you've never heard about it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Your smart remark about Jezebel is non-sequitur to my comment and further more unappreciated. Jezebel covers pop culture and blue collar work is anything but pop-culture. "I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it." Perhaps you should re-read my comment again, I asked you about methodology thus getting at a deeper analysis of the statistics you site. Also read my response to the comment you're talking about--I took the time to actually read in to the methodology on stats you talked about and expanded on it. Perhaps you take all statistics on face value but I do not. In general, I think it's kind of funny that you typed such a long response without truly reading what I had to say.

by Rariel 16y ago

sosuke 16y ago

A quick Google pulled up the Wikipedia article on Incarceration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration) which actually puts the males at a lower 7 times more likely than women. Here are the stats for 2005 on murder citing men as 4 times more likely to be murdered. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/gender.cfm

Rariel 16y ago
Thanks but I was truly interested in finding out where OP got these stats from, meaning did he also do a quick google search or does he just know these things. I mentioned methodology in my post because that (to me) is the most important part of validating any statistics. My UG education was in a social science so I pay attention to those types of things. Stuff like this "Homicide as defined here includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter which is the willful killing of one human being by another. The general analyses excluded deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder. " So we're saying vehicular manslaughter and shooting somebody in the head are the same while in reality they are completely different. Would you say that if you accidentally kill hit somebody and they die this is a murder? I wouldn't. But those cases get tacked on and divided and put through algorithms under the auspice of nurder. Additionally this "While many agencies report supplemental data on homicides, much of the data concerning offenders may not be reported because no suspects were identified. The most significant problem in using SHR data to analyze offender characteristics is the sizable and growing number of unsolved homicides contained in the data file. " So they guess based on what they do know, I have a problem with that. "In other words, offender profiles for unsolved crimes are estimated based on the offender profiles in solved cases matched on victim age, sex, and race; circumstances of the homicide; location of the homicide; and gun involvement; as well as year. All offender-based estimates were imputed using this procedure. " Those are only a few excerpts that cast doubt on the true validity of the DOJ stats. We have an obsession in this society with quantifying things, even when they can't really be put in to nice little statistics.
johngalt 16y ago
I don't know why the caption says 7x From the table in 2003 male/female incarcerated: 1,316,495/92,785

johngalt 16y ago

Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less? The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. See my other comment about how I'd never partner with anyone whom acted in this manner. There will always be someone that doesn't like you for no good reason male or female. If you look you'll always find a few bad apples. The special treatment is expecting everyone will be nice to you because otherwise it's "discrimination". Men get taken advantage of too, but that doesn't excuse what is effectively a hit piece on an entire industry. "Additionally your logic is flawed--just because you have never heard anybody complain about the lack of women in blue collar jobs (the only jobs you mentioned) doesn't mean it doesn't happen." This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this. Compared to the cacophony of articles lamenting that the geeks are making money and they are all male! I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it.

Rariel 16y ago
"Yes I have extensive experience with discrimination, and it was much worse than any founder that had to put up with being hit on. Does this make my point more valid or less?" I find it interesting you said you have experience with discrimination and not that you are a member of a minority group, that's what I asked--not whether you've been discriminated against. As a person who has been discriminated against, I find it completely pointless to say my suffering is worse than anothers--how would I know since I've never experienced it? I challenge you to think of the same thing in regards to this. Moreover, I never said that it would make your point +/- valid, you created that premise on your own. Your post hardly seemed like it came from somebody who has suffered discrimination, def not on the level you claim. "The point isn't a defense of discrimination, but merely a question of total impact. A guy hit on you and you didn't like it? Tell that VC to get bent and go make money without him. " This assumes you're only going to run in to a few bad apples. Have you stopped to consider it may be way more than a few in this instance? Perhaps it is a systematic and continual thing. "This is true, I admit I'm not a regular jezebel reader and must have missed the article where they mentioned that. Or ever seen an article anywhere lamenting this." Again, you've applied your own ideas to my words--I said that just because you've never heard about it doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. Your smart remark about Jezebel is non-sequitur to my comment and further more unappreciated. Jezebel covers pop culture and blue collar work is anything but pop-culture. "I'd cite my stats, but looks like someone already beat me to it." Perhaps you should re-read my comment again, I asked you about methodology thus getting at a deeper analysis of the statistics you site. Also read my response to the comment you're talking about--I took the time to actually read in to the methodology on stats you talked about and expanded on it. Perhaps you take all statistics on face value but I do not. In general, I think it's kind of funny that you typed such a long response without truly reading what I had to say.