ntuch

What's more infuriating is that this explanation persisted in spite of women's gains in the fields of psychology, law, and medicine, just to name a few. The idea that computer science men perpetrated some special and successful conspiracy against women in their field that doctors and lawyers were unable to do in their field is so patently ridiculous as to be on the level of flat earthers.

Your comment is a great example of the logical fallacy:argument by ridicule. You haven't made a valid point. You re wrong. And you can prove this to yourself (if you're able) by making an attempt to address his comment directly, without ridicule.

See, he did not claim that women want less money. He claimed (and he's right - and you're not even remotely able to challenge this, and you burn with anger at your failure, because it destroys your entire worldview, and deep down, you know it) that men and women are different.

I dare you to address his actual point. I dare you.

> not working along side of women Women able to read and comprehend at high school level would have no problem working along side him.

>use that data to show the right ads to the right people

To expand on what you're saying here, YouTube allows offended people to bully them by contacting advertisers and saying things like, "YouTube is putting ads for your company in front of videos about hitler!!" And YouTube just immediately caves to that.

YouTube's response from day one should have been, "no, we don't put ads in front of videos, that's not how this works. This isn't tv where the ad is broadcast whether someone is watching or not. This is a website that plays videos you ask for. We (youtube) have data about you. We (try to) select an ad specifically for you. We did not play that ad for Pepsi because it has anything to do with hitler. We played it because (our data suggested) the ad is relevant to you. And then afterward, we played the Hitler vid because that's what you clicked on."

That seems like such an obvious, slam dunk response to me. I think the reason YouTube didn't push back in that manner is that they welcomed the excuse to start pushing political content they don't like off their platform.

> We cannot address body shaming, by hiding people of different body sizes.

I just want to make sure that I understand you. You're saying that in your dating app, you prevent people from searching/filtering based on body size and that the reason you designed your app this way was to "address body shaming"

That was a poor attempt at argument by ridicule. You didn't actually address anything I said.

What if it turns out that there is a deep-seated psychological need present in many (NOT ALL) humans to participate in peer groups defined along lines of gender - and what if it turns out that if society denies them acceptable outlets for this need, that they fill the need by joining socially unacceptable groups (ie. gangs)? If we suspect that this psychological need is present, do we persist in denying acceptable outlets for it?

> hate speech" is not a class.

As a hacker, do you not see that there's a security vulnerability here that's big enough to drive a truck through? You simply label whatever you don't like as hate speech, then you're magically allowed to censor it.

> publishers (what Facebook et al. are)

They're not publishers, so your argument falls apart in the very first sentence.

I don't recall a time in history when services (what Facebook et al. are) were allowed to police the content of communications made with their service. I don't recall AT&T, when they allow customers to communicate using their telephone lines, being allowed to police the content of those communications. I don't allow printer manufacturers being allowed to police the things people print.

Before you reach for the keyboard to type the words, "that's different" - no, no it's not. It's not different at all. Facebook offers a service. They aren't publishers. My analogy is closer to reality than yours. It just so happens that Facebook is technically able to police my speech, and so you've chosen to shrug and say it's okay. If AT&T had been technically capable of listening to my speech and policing it, what argument would you make that they shouldn't be allowed to do that? Whatever argument you come up with, I make the same argument for facebook.

> I'm for free speech, but

"...but I'm not really for free speech."

It's all or nothing. You either accept it as a principle because you understand that it's literally the most important principle, or you don't. In your case, you don't.

Depends on how long the signal lasts. If it's continuous, there's no way to take it with a single transmitter. Astronomers can detect the apparent motion of stars caused by the earth's orbit, and use those measurements to triangulate the distance to stars, even though the stars are many light years away. A single transmitter on a probe near our solar system would be very obvious.

The evergreen professor didn't get any mainstream interviews, did he?

> I'm setting up the premise for a logical argument

Nope. You're arguing a straw man. You're lying about the contents of the memo.

> I could work my way through the tedious document again and point out the compendium of ever increasing logical fallacies and plain dumb non-scientific assertions

You're lying. You cannot do that. You can only argue against straw man of your own creation.

> the people at Google are generally smart and saw through all the bullshit and rightfully fired the guy in spite of knee jerk protestations from what appears to be mainly conservatives with a bruised ego

Nope. The people at Google are mainly leftists whose egos were bruised by having the truth presented to them. Instead of refute anything in the memo, they made knee jerk protestations (and often violent threats, as leftists tend to be bullies).

> science and reason are not on your side here.

Oh yes they are. The claims made by the memo are absolutely correct. You cannot even begin to address them, which is why you prefer to lie through straw men.

So the answer to the question: Could you quote exactly the line where he 'attempted to do the same with women who work at Google'?

is, "no, I cannot quote that, because I just made it up."

> It's implicit in the thesis.

You lie.

> It's there in the very first fucking line if you use [0] source.

No, it's not. You have no rebuttal, and you're just making things up. You're wrong, and you're attempting to conceal it with lies.