3 ms·

>And yet, they exist. That's the point. These sorts of groups all exist in one fashion or another. No one has denied they exist, this is a classic motte-and-ba

>And yet, they exist. That's the point. These sorts of groups all exist in one fashion or another. No one has denied they exist, this is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy. >You quibble about the amount of funding involved, but ultimately they all exist within the same framework of interest groups for those who ascribe to certain identities. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." >That is a phenomenon that precedes any such "culture war" observed by a narrow time perspective. It is something that predates de Tocqueville. I don't disagree (Published 17 August 1945)[0]... [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm

Apocryphon 3y ago
The entire discourse seems to contest their very existence, and not even dive into the details. You are the only one arguing about the amount of money involved as if it matters a whit of difference. My entire point is to explain why the existence of such groups is unremarkable, and unworthy of outrage. I care not for your naming of fallacies. And in tech it is vital to tend to one's moat. > "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." > I don't disagree (Published 17 August 1945)[0] Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States. de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right.
- anonfordays 3y ago
  >The entire discourse seems to contest their very existence Except it doesn't, and again, no one has denied their existence. >You are the only one arguing about the amount of money involved as if it matters a whit of difference. My entire point is to explain why the existence of such groups is unremarkable, and unworthy of outrage. You've explained poorly. Once more, no one is arguing that the existence of such groups is remarkable. Quite the contrary, they're par for the course in CURRRNTYEAR. They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment. >And in tech it is vital to tend to one's moat. In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure. >Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States. Indeed, which makes its prescience all the more amazing. >de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right. It's not the 19th century, and we're not discussing democracy in the US. Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman to sound well read. Embarrassing.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    > no one has denied their existence But they have contested WWC's existence, in the sense of whether it ought to exist, in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group. > They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment. I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them. They are size what now? > In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure. Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.” > which makes its prescience all the more amazing. Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries and governmental incompetence is truly analogous to social relations in a specific industry in modern day America. Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984. > Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman. I haven't even read de Tocqueville, nor am I a polisci major, so I do not know what you are talking about.
    - anonfordays 2y ago
      >But they have contested WWC's existence, in the sense of whether it ought to exist I can hear the goal posts screeching from here. >in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group. Except you didn't point that out, as a matter of fact, it only weakened your case. A beat up dinghy and a superyacht are not "qualitatively no different". >I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them. Correct, this is a key difference. >Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.” Glad that's not what happened there. Or were you pointing out that you confused motte and moat? Either way, swing and a miss. >Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries You're almost there, so close. >Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984. It's almost like the group that denounces [racism] came to power and corrected it with... More [racism], but new [racism], which is inexplicably moral, you know, exactly how Animal Farm ends. 1984 is practically a manual for these types.

Apocryphon 3y ago

The entire discourse seems to contest their very existence, and not even dive into the details. You are the only one arguing about the amount of money involved as if it matters a whit of difference. My entire point is to explain why the existence of such groups is unremarkable, and unworthy of outrage. I care not for your naming of fallacies. And in tech it is vital to tend to one's moat. > "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." > I don't disagree (Published 17 August 1945)[0] Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States. de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right.

anonfordays 3y ago
>The entire discourse seems to contest their very existence Except it doesn't, and again, no one has denied their existence. >You are the only one arguing about the amount of money involved as if it matters a whit of difference. My entire point is to explain why the existence of such groups is unremarkable, and unworthy of outrage. You've explained poorly. Once more, no one is arguing that the existence of such groups is remarkable. Quite the contrary, they're par for the course in CURRRNTYEAR. They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment. >And in tech it is vital to tend to one's moat. In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure. >Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States. Indeed, which makes its prescience all the more amazing. >de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right. It's not the 19th century, and we're not discussing democracy in the US. Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman to sound well read. Embarrassing.
- Apocryphon 3y ago
  > no one has denied their existence But they have contested WWC's existence, in the sense of whether it ought to exist, in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group. > They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment. I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them. They are size what now? > In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure. Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.” > which makes its prescience all the more amazing. Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries and governmental incompetence is truly analogous to social relations in a specific industry in modern day America. Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984. > Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman. I haven't even read de Tocqueville, nor am I a polisci major, so I do not know what you are talking about.
  - anonfordays 2y ago
    >But they have contested WWC's existence, in the sense of whether it ought to exist I can hear the goal posts screeching from here. >in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group. Except you didn't point that out, as a matter of fact, it only weakened your case. A beat up dinghy and a superyacht are not "qualitatively no different". >I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them. Correct, this is a key difference. >Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.” Glad that's not what happened there. Or were you pointing out that you confused motte and moat? Either way, swing and a miss. >Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries You're almost there, so close. >Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984. It's almost like the group that denounces [racism] came to power and corrected it with... More [racism], but new [racism], which is inexplicably moral, you know, exactly how Animal Farm ends. 1984 is practically a manual for these types.