toor2

Your post is so problematic I can't even begin to dismantle it without wasting half my day.

Please keep your transphobic layman interpretation of old school medicine to your self.

gross

Zuckerberg quote from article: >I think you need to have all kinds of diversity if you want to make progress together as a society

While I do think there are benifits to idealogical diversity, I think this statement is hamfisted. Do climate deniers aid the progress of climate science? Do flat earthers contribute meaningfully to cosmology, geography or cartography? No. I believe the actual benifits of idealogical diversity stem from scepticism and falsifiability within a community (science). A flat earther physicist would add idealogical deversity to the physics community but they wouldn't contribute to the progress of the field.

In softer, less objective spheres such as social issues and politics, the same idea applies. Does giving racsim a platform in the name of diversity really progress society? Maybe it could by reinforcing the beliefs of anti-racist people and thus diminishing racism. However it could also propagate racsim regressing society, which I think is a more likely outcome.

These problems and questions do not have a simple, computable solutions. The matters of progress are entirely subjective making fair solutions nuanced and difficult to come by. That's why I think statements like the one Zuckerberg made are hamfisted because they offer a one-size-fits-all solution to these nuanced complicated problems.

DISCLAIMER: I am not taking a stance on Peter Theil and Facebook, I am just responding to rhetoric that I have seen frequently since The Election™

I am not trying to make a political stance here. I don't disagree that the media is controlled by be an elite minority.

I was simply pointing out that the rhetoric you just spewed is meaningless in this context and contributed nothing of substance to the conversation.

I suppose I am at fault here as well. I shouldn't have given such a useless comment the dignity and value provided by a response.

"Globalist media monopoly" is a line often repeated by nationalist propaganda chanels and, unfortunately, most consumers of opinion are in a rush to disagree with anything that challenges their world view.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the parent comment about sinking ships. I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to form this type of meaningless rhetoric

Can't you just use AWS or an equivalent cloud service instead of owning a server?

With the electoral college al you have to do is appeal to the mob in the swing states. Then you give that select group of voting Americans the ability to suppress the rest of the population. How is that any better?

Maybe you don't get it because you are privileged and therefore adequately represented in society

It's only ironic if you sexualize female genitalia

They are bennies with cat ears called pussy hats, not "clit hats". They were made in response to the "grab me by the pussy" remark The Donald made.

Also AFAB people have a right to destigmatize their reproductive organs. (Think about how many times a day middle school boys draw penises on things)

Now that being said, I think the pussy hats are problematic because they are trans exclusionary, which is totally unrelated to your imagined feminist hypocrisy.

Can you please elaborate on this?

A major tenant of third wave feminism is intersectionallity, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what your just said.

>it's a cultural issue, not an industry one

Industries have cultures. Cultural issues and issues within an industry's culture are not mutually exclusive by definition.

>Fix your culture

That's the point of this blog post and conversation. We aren't going to fix anything by skirting blame onto greater societal forces and continue on business as normal

>Notoriety is not direct evidence. People can be notorious without being guilty.

This argument is a fallacy fallacy. Sure I made a unsubstantiated claim but it doesn't contradict or invalidate my general argument.

>I don't know weather other fields with a similar proportion of men have similar problems.

How is this relevant? I get the feeling that you read my comment looking for some insignificant hyperbole you could attack in order to derail my general argument to perpetuate your willful ignorance enabled by your male priveldge.

>Studies highly welcome

How about listening to the _women_ in tech like the one who wrote the blog post we are commenting on?

>Banking, retail, fashion, you will get such comments everywhere. A lot of men are jerks indeed but this is a social problem, not an industry one.

This is a moral equivalence fallacy, a red herring of sorts. You are saying this women's frustration with her industry is irrelevant to her industry because a handful of unrelated indusries have problems that could be similar.

This argument ignores that CS/IT is largely male and notorious are for this disgusting behavior. It's one of the only industries that had a greater percentage of women in the 80s than it does now. There are industries that do not suffer from this problem at all or nearly to the same degree.

In full, this women's expirence is directly related to overt mysogeny in industry culture and labeling it as a "social problem" willfully ignores this problem in tech thus perpetuating it further.

Caitlyn Jenner