jasonx1e

How is that any different from European censorship?

Nazism is despicable, but censoring the Nazi voice is effectively the same as preventing citizens from having those "dissident thoughts" that contradict modern western government, and you actually can receive prison time for expressing Nazi sentiments in Germany so the government absolutely does "oppress them" for having those thoughts.

China views western influence the same way. In China's history, rule by the west has seen terrorism, imperialism, and corruption, which have lasted far longer (since the 1800s when the First Opium Wars were fought), and I would argue have led to greater suffering (certainly the numbers are in favor of this being the case).

Accepting government censorship in the EU is, in principle, no different from censorship in China. The only difference is the flavor.

For the record, I support neither.

I don't understand the outrage about censorship particularly with respect to the Chinese government.

Google has agreed to remove plenty of stuff from the search engine that many Europeans see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

Sounds like double standards to me.

Is there a progression to this one might follow?

But I can't see why regulation must be necessary to maintain net neutrality; of course it's a good thing, I'm just not sure the government necessarily needs to mandate it.

Documented abuses of net neutrality were few and far between and there really wasn't a precedent for the 2010 Act in the first place. Mobile phone carriers are not subject to the same net neutrality rules, yet I haven't heard of any of the 4 major providers deliberately throttling internet service.

I'd written a paragraph explaining why your arguments are wrong and asking you to reevaluate your viewpoint. But forget that.

I'll ask you this: UC Berkeley, a school that does not consider gender in applications per California law, has a EECS department makeup of 4:1 M/F.

UC Berkeley is required by law to not consider gender when evaluating applicants, is extremely liberal/left, and has an overall population of 52% female.

Explain to me what UC Berkeley is doing wrong, and how we should change it.

If you think UC Berkeley should lower the bar for female applicants to achieve parity, then our conversation is over, because we have fundamentally different ideals. I want meritocracy. You want to parasitically feed off of someone else's merits - I guess they call it "socialism" but that word has become so mainstreamed it doesn't do justice to how despicable your utopia is.

If you think increasing outreach efforts to get more children interested in science so (and therefore, there will naturally be more female applicants as a consequence) , you'd stop dismissing me as a "sexist" and think critically about why it is that I'm doing what I'm doing.

>> My extensive experience with MRAs, etc,

I'm not a mens right activist, nor have I once suggested that the system is designed against men, so you can throw aside your straw mans now.

>> I've got better things to do. If you're serious about helping women

Sounds like to me you don't actually want equality, you just pretend you do so you can "feel" like you're part of a new Civil Rights movement while actually doing nothing about it. Except occasionally tapping away at your keyboard calling others sexist.

You keep saying the same thing, and I keep telling you why you're wrong, and for some reason you keep saying the same thing, as if somehow rewording them changes anything.

I'll repeat myself for a change, since you don't seem to get it:

"All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females in STEM is lower than that of those practicing affirmative action (which essentially amounts to bar-lowering), and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution.

Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind."

>> Those were dumb arguments then, and it's a dumb argument now.

Back then, there were laws that actively prohibited African-Americans from attaining freedom and women from voting, and government backed frameworks in place to enforce these laws.

Name a SINGLE law today that actively restricts women but not men from choosing any career path.

>> you can probably work out what I think you'll actually do.

Can you tell me some of YOUR efforts in helping educate and tutor young kids in STEM?

Quit stroking yourself by claiming to be morally righteous, get your ass off the internet once in your life, and go tutor a young girl in trigonometry this weekend.

>> "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company

No, it's not even close to the same.

That an individual is less likely to choose a career doesn't mean that individual inherently is bad at it.

You keep trying to imply that I think less of women. I don't. I'm happy to acknowledge there are plenty of women who are much better than me at tech and plenty that have helped me out. Just because there happen to be less doesn't mean they are inherently worse.

And you could do well leaving out ad hominems. I have been respectful throughout this discussion, while you accuse me of sexism every other line. Most people aren't as impatient as I am when called a sexist as many times as you have. Do you see why conservatives avoid these discussions now?

Odds are I've done more to bridge the gap than you have - I have been a TA for a high school AP Physics MOOC and I am a volunteer at the Lawrence Hall of Science. Do you spend your weekends tutoring young girls and getting them to pursue science?

>> This is just shockingly ignorant.

As someone who had at least 15 girls in my AP Computer Science class in high school, no, it's not. In fact, you can google the requirements needed for taking an AP exam: find a high school willing to let you take it (usually the high school you attend), and pay the $100 fee. That's it.

>> Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this.

Sure there are plenty of successful women in tech. No one's making the claim that all women aren't interested, and it's never even been mentioned that women are worse at tech.

They just happen in smaller numbers compared to men.

>> Plenty of research refutes it.

93% of occupational deaths are men, as I have mentioned 2 posts ago.

Why can't more women be truck drivers, police detectives, nuclear reactor facilitators, logistics workers, mechanics, or electricians? These jobs all happen to be high 5 figures and many are 6 figures.

It turns out, it has nothing to do with tech being sexist, and all to do with women on average being less likely to chase riskier careers in favor of more stable careers at the expense of a lower salary.[1]

>> At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.

All this theorizing, and you still don't explain to me why we see the distribution of the AP testing that we do, why at gender-blind universities the rate of females is lower than those that practice affirmative action bar-lowering, and why you think discriminating against qualified men is an appropriate solution.

Until you provide feasible arguments to each of these, no amount of implicitly calling me a sexist is going to change my mind.

[1]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268.full.pdf

>> influenced for example by the presence or absence of role models or the impression of certain fields as not welcoming to women.

Sure it can play a part in the outcome, but that in no way limits anyone from still pursuing the field, and hence there is still equality of opportunity. The latter is what (hopefully) any rational human being wants.

I'm not against more outreach efforts or helping encourage more girls to pursue STEM. I personally volunteer at a science museum and have in the past been a TA for high school STEM MOOCs.

What I am against is accusing the existing system for discriminating against females (unless you provide direct evidence that gender is the sole cause of the outcome inequality, which I will be happy to agree if the evidence is convincing) and then continuously lowering the bar for entry for females (thus achieving diversity but undermining meritocracy) - which is what I see happening right now.

Anonymous? My user can easily be googled...

>> to try to preserve the argument that women are biologically inferior

You clearly didn't read, because I made the argument that women are less INTERESTED, not that they are biologically inferior. Get rid of that chip on your shoulder.

This is why conservatives aren't willing to discuss these issues. Because the moment I call you out on using bullshit arguments you call me a sexist despite not having once made a single comment on the abilities of females.

I used evidence proving that even at the high school level (where there are practically 0 bars for entry), girls constitute a significantly smaller part of the classroom than boys in CS/Physics/Calc 2, and then gave an example of a university system that legally was not allowed to consider gender as part of admissions having similar gender representation - because as it turns out most universities practice gender based affirmative action in STEM, and thus girls are overrepresented at schools like MIT and Stanford.

It turns out that the 3:1, 4:1 ratios of the AP exams and Berkeley EECS department happen to be consistent with the hiring makeup of tech companies.

>> we are steadily approaching them in law and medicine.

The same stats I listed earlier show near equal representation in AP tests for AP History (World, European, and US), Government, Chemistry, and Biology. Some of these even skew towards majority female. So 50/50 representation is to be expected.

Again, at this point in time, equal representation in tech would only be a product of discrimination against males.

Perhaps it won't be the case in the future as there are more outreach efforts now than ever to get girls to pursue science.

But I specifically worded my response the way I did for a reason.

What I mean by that is there exist no gender barriers to take an AP exam - that fewer women are studying CS in college or working a technical role is not a result of a biased system, but of an individual decision that comes down to fewer girls DECIDING to learn computer science.

If it's a business decision to hire more females, then who are we to demand top tech companies expand their college search range?

Could it not be a business decision to minimize risk?

(I, for one, am in favor of getting rid of all diversity quotas. Companies should be allowed to hire 100% black LGBT disabled women as much as they should be allowed to hire majority males out of elite universities.)

Except this isn't true; there are many cases where inequality of outcome is not a cause of inequality of opportunity - unless you're telling me the system actively encourages men to die on the job - so much so that 93% of all occupational deaths are male.[0]

CollegeBoard testing statistics demonstrate that in high school, 2-3 times as many boys take the AP Calculus BC, AP Physics, AP Computer Science exam than girls.[1][2]

And as you probably know, AP exams don't discriminate against gender or race - they just need you to pay the testing fee (or the reduced fee if you qualify).

UC Berkeley's EECS major has a department ratio of 4:1 M/F across all 4 class years (CalAnswers - any alumni can check this if they don't believe me), and because of California law the UC system is not allowed to consider gender as part of admissions.[3]

Differences in gender makeup of engineering and computer science come down to fewer girls choosing to pursue the field, and not because the system is inherently biased.

Given these factors, if we are seeing 50/50 gender outcomes in tech at this moment in time, it is the result of a system that undermines the meritocracy by discriminating against males.

[0]https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0006.pdf [1]https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/re... [2]http://i.imgur.com/ZalZhtF.png [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_209

This is pretty clearly documented.

In universities that don't consider race or gender in admissions (notably the UC system and Caltech), the minority rate tanks (except for Asian-American rates, which double).

It is matching society, however: CollegeBoard testing statistics reveal that in high school girls take AP Computer Science much less frequently than boys - at proportions fairly close to 1:3.

Given that anyone is free to take an AP exam provided they can spend $100, the only plausible explanation is that fewer girls choose to pursue computer science as a major.

Alternatively, you could suggest that there is nationwide collusion between CollegeBoard and amongst computer science teachers to limit girls from taking the APCS test - and that no one has found out or exposed it.

>> But I'd say it's not that common.

Then you should look at the actual university policies outlined on their website. At top of line elite schools (Stanford, Princeton level), if your family income <$65-75K, both tuition and housing are free, and <$125K tuition is free.

I know for a fact that state schools like UC Berkeley and UCLA aren't that generous with housing.

>> Just look at the make up of study body at the top 5 schools.

Students from wealthier backgrounds tend to have more access to academic and educational resources and are thus more qualified and more likely to be admitted.

Not a judgement suggesting that a less fortunate child would not succeed in a similar environment; many of them just don't have one.

16 in 10 silicon valley executives are white, while 7 in 10 are Asian (for every 10 engineers). So Asians are actually underrepresented at the highest level.

I have no comments on the current Washington administration's personal views - if their goal is to get rid of AA and remove diversity regulations from industry then it's a goal that's fine with me.

And explain to me why some bureaucratic organization is responsible for correcting for this disproportion.

On average in the United States (I say average because someone here is bound to call me an Asian supremacist when I am just taking statistics), Asians make up the highest percentage of college applicants [1], Asians have the highest average SAT scores [2], Asians are the most likely to enter and graduate college [3], and Asians make up the highest income bracket in the US [4].

Given these trends, we should, in fact, see a larger number of Asians in tech and it should not be surprising. Google's bureaucracy should not hire less Asians because "there are more."

I would not mind if Google were 100% Black females. Just as long as it's a merit based system.

[1] https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/infocenter/admissions... [2] https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webAdmission%20Preferen... [3] https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/Signature12... [4] https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/... [4] summary on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_U...

I find Photoshop v Gimp akin to Android v iOS.

His lectures are awesome, wish some of them could be remastered though

Now make one that can find inverses ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)