Lurker > COVxy

The Admiral posted...

eston posted...

You pay what it takes to get the most qualified people.

This is only true in competitive markets. Since the government has no competition -- and there is no penalty for hiring crappy workers -- you pay what the public unions negotiate in exchange for votes.

Bloodychess posted...

eston posted...

You pay what it takes to get the most qualified people.

On paper that's how it should work, but the public sector isn't always known for fairly choosing the most qualified people

Makes me wonder what these people think government jobs are actually like lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

boxington posted...

Monday posted...

IT takes place in 1957, tho

this adaptation will take place in the 80s

Is that true? Why would they do that? I mean, key parts of the story and interactions pretty heavily depend on the culture of the time.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I lol'd.

Especially since the tweet obsessing on little facts got a little fact wrong. Kinda a big fact, the date of the setting.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ViewtifulGrave posted...

COVxy posted...

I think it's usually an excuse to feel offended. Cultures should mix, nothing should be sacred, people are silly.

Idk.

It kinda bugs me someone not of African descent wears du-rags. Some people see this and think it's "cool" and try to emulate the look, but don't understand that there are specific hair care reasons why we wear them.

But why? Why have you convinced yourself that this thing is so integral to your own identity that it takes something away from it if someone else has it?

It's just silly, who cares?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I think it's usually an excuse to feel offended. Cultures should mix, nothing should be sacred, people are silly.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Btw, a quick google search suggests that this is actually just an advertisement for an event/competition to promote women involvement in STEM:

http://iceboxderby.com/
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Verdekal posted...

COVxy posted...

There's probably some merit on diversity of culture breeding diversity of ideas.

I'm sure there is.

Then I'm sure you would agree that it's not entirely "a stupid thing".
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

There's probably some merit on diversity of culture breeding diversity of ideas.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Xeno14 posted...

actually it had to be pointed out to you that you didn't read it at all before discussing it, and made such elementary mistakes, couldn't come up with the basic premise of cognitive biases explaining results instead going for a basic failure in a control group. instead using arguing from your ass like usual.

1. The news article posted in the topic very clearly misrepresented the actual study design, and if the study design that they described were true, then everything I was saying within the topic would have been true. Do you even remember why I started in on that topic? Only to further clarify the inference one of the posters was making based on the study design.
2. After having read the actual report, which I hadn't really had time or wanted to put in the effort to do (as that wasn't even the reason I entered the topic to begin with), I admitted fault and reinterpreted. So, why are you still harping on the issue?

Seems like you are just seeing me as an outgroup and want to harp on it because you see it as a time where I was once overtly wrong. Which is true, and I admitted I was wrong. I probably should have read the original report in the first place rather than trusting the news article, but to be fair I wasn't actually actively participating in the topic, or planning to, with the exception of explaining the other poster's logic regarding the conclusions to be drawn from the study design.

Xeno14 posted...

see what your statement fails to realize is within feminist spheres of thinking, the purposeful exclusion of whites, males, makes sense. specifically are influenced by the works of Sandra Harding, or Evelyn Keller, neither of who are small figures or held positions in irrelevant colleges/universities.

but no you rather dodge the point because its laborsome to have to consider the alternatives

So, you're gonna sit there with a straight face and tell me that the likely truth is that the billboard was advocating for a female only STEM workforce in the future?

I mean, you have to be disingenuous with this point. There's no way you don't see how silly that is.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Transcendentia posted...

I didn't strawman you. I literally addressed what you said.

And you clearly didn't actually read what I said carefully if you thought I was suggesting you were strawmanning me.

Transcendentia posted...

Exactly. And that's why people could argue that modern diversity just means exclusion of whites.

Only if you are being deliberately dense =)
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I'm surrounded by med students in my general science classes

Lol, no you're not.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Transcendentia posted...

What fucking rock have you been living under?

The one that doesn't involve strawmanning the fuck out of the opposite side to feel better about yourself.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I'm still waiting for you, or anyone, to prove there's unequal opportunity when it comes to getting into STEM.

Yes, if we could just find all their names: "NO WOMEN ALLOWED IN SCIENCE"

it would be a much easier thing to deal with. But discrimination almost never occurs by specific programs to promote inequality.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Lol what? Medicine is one of the few STEM fields where women do have a lot of representation

I mean, I think you'll find that most of those that you debate with will not endorse the idea that there needs to be equal representation for there to be equal opportunity, or that equal representation implies equal opportunity.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

COVxy posted...

I mean, support for women in STEM really increased over the past decade and a half, both in the culture inside and outside the fields.

Right, which is why you can't keep pretending the reason for the dearth of women in sciences is due to lack of societal support.

Training in the sciences is about a 15 year process lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I don't know which planet you've been living on or if you grew up in the 60's, but there are no roadblocks preventing women from pursuing the sciences.

In fact, there's countless programs in place to SUPPORT women going into STEM fields. Certainly more than there are male-specific programs.

I mean, support for women in STEM really increased over the past decade and a half, both in the culture inside and outside the fields.

The idea that everything after the 60's was peachy for women in the sciences is laughable, and demonstrates your utter lack of any context for this discussion.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You mean like it is now?

idk man, women of age to be training to be scientists are my age and there certainly were overt biases while I was growing up.

So it's really the next generation of scientists that will benefit from the culture of inclusion of today. Da future, ya know.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's literally appropriating the phrase in the same way.

Literally means that the future is with inclusion of the women. Not suggesting that the workforce will be dominated by women, rofl. Dial back the paranoia.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

COVxy posted...

This topic is like hearing someone say "children are our future" and then having a s*** fit, yelling that children couldn't possibly run the country and that we should reserve important jobs for the adults.

Swing and a miss.

I mean, it literally is. It's very clear that this is the meaning of the billboard, to interpret it differently is nothing short of being deliberately dense to ensure your strawman stays standing.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This topic is like hearing someone say "children are our future" and then having a shit fit, yelling that children couldn't possibly run the country and that we should reserve important jobs for the adults.

Hilarious that TC got several people to agree to it. I hope people see what he's doing here.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

foreveraIone posted...

Hahaha. Another debate where covxy refuses to refute my point because he knows I am smarter than him.

Hahahaha.

Inb4 he just calls me a lunatic, emotional, or says I don't have a point or something.

Talking with you is repetitive and labor-some, in the same way it is with Xeno. Though, he tries the whole "gotchya!" thing much more often, so he's just more likely to garner a response.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

ChromaticAngel posted...

Psychology, communications, business and other subjective type classes where the majority of your work is research/writing and not working math problems.

To be fair, psychology isn't really subjective and can get quite mathy depending on the subdiscipline, and requires a heavy knowledge of statistics regardless of the subdiscipline. However, unfortunately students perceive it the way you suggest, so there's a great selection for math phobia in psych undergrad.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Xeno14 posted...

COVxy posted...

Transcendentia posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't see any viable criticisms for encouraging women to enter STEM.

exactly. the future of stem will be all non-white females at last

You absolutely know that's not the implication nor the intent of that billboard.

yeah like that whole blind hiring study to increase diversity that ended up with the opposite effect of what was expect. You know, the one you didn't read yet still managed to pull shit out of your ass about? then blamed everyone else for you own failure

and no dude, you can't discern there intent or implication. If they follow feminist standpoint theory, its quite spelled out why only females were there. but then again you might actually have to have knowledge of the subject, and having more knowledge then you is just looking for problems right?

I seem to remember the article and everyone in the topic interpreting it the same incorrect way, and when I went and read the actual report I personally admitted fault.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

foreveraIone posted...

Try being less of a low information voter. And again, this has little to do with the original point.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

foreveraIone posted...

COVxy posted...

foreveraIone posted...

I mean the ones that weren't born with money or the ones that couldn't claw themselves up via bootstraps....and nobody cares.

I think many people care about poverty and class structure in the US, lmao.

I distinctly recall the sexist/racist Bernie Bro narrative being pushed whenever we wanted the candidate that most addressed this.

Face it, neoliberal identity politics is intentional smoke and mirrors meant to divide a struggling portion of America.

Dissonance from a particular subpopulation, to a situation that doesn't fully relate, doesn't indicate that there's nobody talking about classism and poverty, a ridiculous notion.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

foreveraIone posted...

I mean the ones that weren't born with money or the ones that couldn't claw themselves up via bootstraps....and nobody cares.

I think many people care about poverty and class structure in the US, lmao.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Lol, 0 effort it seems.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Transcendentia posted...

COVxy posted...

I don't see any viable criticisms for encouraging women to enter STEM.

exactly. the future of stem will be all non-white females at last

You absolutely know that's not the implication nor the intent of that billboard.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't see any viable criticisms for encouraging women to enter STEM.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Howl posted...

I don't understand how feminists can be against such things and simultaneously argue that trans people exist because they have the opposite genders brain.

You're mostly just conflating different people and pretending they are the same people to make yourself feel better.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

jborgan posted...

Hopefully that will be all or most of the jumpscares in the movie.

Although, tbf, I just started reading through the book, and it's really not something outside of the style of the book.
*spoilers for book, kinda*
There's a scene already relatively early on in the book where Ben Hascom is walking home late from school in the winter and essentially what takes place is a jump scare when he's on the bridge over a stream that comes from the Derry tunnels.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Resort? These agencies have had job postings online for decades.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Was with regards to this entire topic.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Wut.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I mean, some small subset of them are likely doing that, but I imagine the majority see the person jaywalking, look at the traffic situation, and then decide to jaywalk as well.

Sounds like you're just viewing others with a very low esteem.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

That's only because you don't understand the universe and you're not trying to.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I mean, in a sense, affirmative action can be reframed in terms of the family income, something like EFC that FAFSA uses. I mean, the primary way in which racism permeates our society and creates an influence on opportunity is through money, and so not only does this prevent the whole "reverse racism" complaint, it will more or less perform the same, as racial inequalities are encoded in economic inequalities anyway.

That said, most of the outrage regarding affirmative action is driven by a shitty understanding of our society and the effect of affirmative action in the first place.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Kirby posted...

COVxy posted...

Kirby posted...

If population density is a major factor in high crime, then why are the cities with the highest population density (NYC, San Fran, Miami, Boston) not on the top 10 violent cities?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Singapore and Japan are pretty much proof.

No.

Just no. A relationship does not imply a perfectly linear relationship with only one sole underlying cause.

You're the one who pointed out that population density should have ended the topic pages ago.

Yes, because there have been no attempts to actually look at crime rates after population density is controlled for, and there wont be, because this topic is a partisan shitshow.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Because there isn't one sole underlying cause.

Poverty, despair, density, and contraband need to combine in a critical mass to cause endemic crime in an area. Probably also two or three other factors I'm forgetting.

Yes, many many factors that are very often examined by criminologists. However, in this partisan blame game, no one has controlled for such factors, making the attempt at examining data uninterpretable.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Kirby posted...

If population density is a major factor in high crime, then why are the cities with the highest population density (NYC, San Fran, Miami, Boston) not on the top 10 violent cities?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Singapore and Japan are pretty much proof.

No.

Just no. A relationship does not imply a perfectly linear relationship with only one sole underlying cause.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

COVxy posted...

When wealth disparity is controlled for, the relationships between population density and crime rate disappears?

Theoretically, yes.

http://www.sacs.co.za/murder-rate-gini-coefficient/

That doesn't address anything I asked in my post.

Demonstrating that wealth disparity is an issue doesn't demonstrate that population density is not. And my guess is that these two factors are fat too correlated to actually do the proper statistics to start to parse that out.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

COVxy posted...

Ah, the "let's pretend population density isn't a factor in crime rates, despite it being one of the most heavily studied factors in criminology" topic.

Actually it's the GINI index that predicts crime rates, not population density.

Population density is a factor in the GINI index but it's not what causes crime.

When wealth disparity is controlled for, the relationships between population density and crime rate disappears? Also, how much multicolinearity is within a model like that? I would imagine metrics of wealth disparity and population density are highly correlated.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Ah, the "let's pretend population density isn't a factor in crime rates, despite it being one of the most heavily studied factors in criminology" topic.

This was pointed out early on and this topic still continues, heading towards a 3rd page. Smh.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Admiral posted...

Wikileaks has a more accurate track record than every single mainstream media outlet. Not sure what the joke is, other than that it doesn't support your quip about "reality having a liberal bias."

Yes, I love Russian spies feeding me my news.

Wikileaks is so transparently in bed with the Russian government that it's hilarious.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Admiral posted...

Your heterosexual instincts might give you an initial attraction, but it's completely into the realm of homosexuality once a penis is involved and you continue on with the sex acts.

There is no penis in a fully transitioned MtF transgendered person.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Admiral posted...

COVxy posted...

The Admiral posted...

I don't know if it's redundant, since most straight men will not sleep with a MtF transgender.

Which has little to do with sexual orientation.

You tell yourself that.

Is this supposed to be a veiled attack on my sexuality?

Perhaps you want to look up some FtM transgendered people and try to convince yourself that it would be totally heterosexual to hit dat. I mean, they are truly a woman, afterall, yes?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

The Admiral posted...

I don't know if it's redundant, since most straight men will not sleep with a MtF transgender.

Which has little to do with sexual orientation.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

treewojima posted...

lol wikileaks

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

COVxy posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I like how you fools completely ignored the source in my post which proves I'm right.

lol indeed!

The blog post you posted does not support your statement, not even close.

^ This people is why you should always judge a citation by the sources it uses.

Uh, I meant that the information inside the blog post didn't support the statement you made.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I like how you fools completely ignored the source in my post which proves I'm right.

lol indeed!

The blog post you posted does not support your statement, not even close.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]