lomegor

How could you solve the problem without indicating the group of people who is being treated differently?

I understand what you are saying, but there's no other way to achieve equality, other than specifically separating the groups that need to be treated differently than they are now. Otherwise you wouldn't even be able to do statistics or anything to see if what you are doing is working.

The question you should be asking, is why is it not?

> no one should be made to apologize for a belief that half of the country

He wasn't made to apologize.

> between dialogue/engagement and intimidation/suppression, the latter was chosen.

I've seen much more dialogue and engagement than intimidation and suppression. Most things I've seen on this topic were people complaining and writing, not forcing Mozilla to do anything. The only one that got close to "intimidation" is the OKCupid thing, which is still debatable.

> Do these people realise that the exact same arguments were used for the suppression of gays? how are these valid now?

Are you seriously comparing the oppression of gay people with the "oppression" of people who have homophobic views? I don't think this should be explained to you, but it's totally OK to discriminate people because of what they think or the opinions they have; is not OK to discriminate people by what they are. For example, any company should be free to fire White Supremacists, but not to fire white people just for being white. Are you seriously saying that people shouldn't dissociate themselves from people whose opinions they find offensive? And you are complaining about political correctness?

> But even worse than that is the argument that nothing illegal was done. Yep, the same as stripping Alan Turing of his awards was legal at the time, or put him under "treatment", or marginalising and ostracising him.

Again with this comparison! You seriously need to stop comparing the discrimination of gay people with the discrimination of homophobic people. Next thing you know, you are probably going to argue that LGBT organizations need to accept homophobic managers and volunteers.

> look at the lack of compassion as human beings people have for those who dissent in a way that offends them.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here. I haven't noticed a lack of compassion. in your whole comment, there is no single argument to explain your position, and the only thing you did was create arguments from thin air and disproving them. I don't even know who you are talking about... everyone who supported the firing of Eich?

It's a sad day when homophobia is not a valid reason for so much people to fire a representative of your company.

> The underlying message of this program is that as programmers, girls are different than boys. This is both false and absurd -- mathematics, logic and computer science have no gender.

No, the underlying message is that society treats women and men differently, and thus comparisons like what you just did (changing "girls" for "boys") do not work. You may not believe that, but that's another problem. If I create a program to help poor people become programmers, am I really saying that rich people are different than poor people? And do you think I can use "low income" and "high income" interchangeably on those programs?

Why do you feel the need to say that Asian people are more at a disadvantaged that women? Can't we agree that both are at a disadvantage and we should help them? Your statement is highly subjective and really difficult to prove. You are also implying that we should help women less and Asian people more. Don't be like that. There's absolutely no need to try to empower one group while lowering another one.

"just because the victim is a woman, doesn't mean it's sexism."

You really think people forget about that? That there are a lot of people around the planet who think any aggression against a woman is sexism? So much that you think your comment is necessary and adds to the discussion?

Are saying that all men are a "racist" stereotype, so if there was a woman it would have to be a "sexist" stereotype? How does that make sense? Why can't one of the "racist" stereotypes be a woman? Just because a woman is not a man, it doesn't mean that you need to add something to repeat that they are different.

There are other differences between the characters in TF2 other than their nationality that do not get their own sterotypes. Why is it necessary that as soon as a woman appears, sexism is necessary? Why isn't the reverse true? Do you think that it may have something to do with male being considered a "default" gender?

This is not about something being "feminine" or not. A lot of people will say that War is not feminine, but it still doesn't make sense that there were no women in CoD.

1. Because of institutional sexism. Things that exist that discourage or push women off the path to working in technology.

2. It's not that only men can ride it, it's that it's already full men, which is the current situation. Most people trying to get jobs in the technology area are men.

3. The elevator would be policies that help women in the technology areas. Be it affirmative action, or programs designed to help women in the area.

4. Because if you allow everyone in the elevator it would be full of men once again, and a line would form, with the same situation that it's happening in the escalator. If you could manage to make a line where people all queue correctly, and cancel both escalators, you would lose the current situation where people more skilled get to the second floor first.

I thought it was pretty clear. Did I manage to explain it better?

All these articles are assuming Nintendo will get the whole profits from the videos, but I'm not seeing that in any sources. Does any one have more info on that? As far as I understand it, Nintendo will only get a cut from the profits, YouTube another cut, and the rest will go to the creator of the video. Not that it makes the move much better, but I think it's important to note if people can still make money from Nintendo Let's Plays.

The other thing I would like to know if anyone has more info, is if this in fact, affects Let's Plays. Maybe they were only going after machinima, or videos that show trailers or cutscenes. Is there any source where I can read more of that? I think this could be the crux of the issue: if they aren't trying to get money from Let's Plays, the move isn't so bad. EDIT: NVM, read the original source and they are claiming LP videos... that's sad, really.

What I find weird about this whole thing is that neither Nintendo or YouTube have issued an explanation of how things are going to work, and why they think the move is a good one. With all the backslash that this has created in the last week, I would think those companies would like to offer their side of the argument.