tnone

The new generation is more censorious and intellectually sheltered than before. Blame schools and colleges who decided to focus on providing a safe space, and the tech companies those students moved into.

Blame shitty mobile developers who screwed the pooch on Android. Even if you avoid shovelware, the quality is abysmal.

My Android phone still randomly lights up its screen several times a day, without a new notification having come in. Reporting overall energy usage doesn't help me track down the culprit.

It's not like anyone's written apps for real work on these devices anyway. It's all just second class software.

There are trolls on the internet, but pretending it's a unified front is a ploy only useful to those seeking to play out their victim status.

Pao got roasted on reddit because she became the figurehead for widely unpopular community changes. At best you could say she was set up as the patsy by Reddit's board.

GamerGate was a cluster fuck where existing troll groups like GNAA and BWC jumped in, as did the nihilistic lolcow milkers of baphomet and kiwifarms. But the whole thing was started by a scandal over an ex helldump member, whose anti harassment group was later caught doxing and harassing, and whose posse got caught false flagging in the Social Autopsy drama. To pretend like GG is a misogynist troll army means falling for the narrative set out by the media the movement accused while ignoring the realities of the spheres in which it took place.

GG is also not right wing, as Brad Glasgow's research showed, so associating it with the alt-right is more idiotic narrative spinning. Like when feminists lump together MRA, red pill and mgtow as some sort of unholy woman hating underbelly, instead of the 3 very different things that they are.

None of this has been objectively covered, nobody bothered to investigate, only to do what the article above does: feature one sided profiles of self declared victims who stood to gain a lot from that portrayal. Visit r/KotakuInAction for instance and observe how what was claimed to be a "smoke screen" for hate is still going 3 years later, still covering abject failures in reporting, while banning all harassment.

(Repost: stop flagging the truth, you cowards. What is it going to take to admit you got rolled by a sociopath and her pets?)

You're right of course, but telling the truth gets your comment flagged. I wonder what they're so afraid of...

I agree that her gender and ethnicity were a factor: when a white male is a CEO, nobody will conclude he isn't in full authority in his role and deserves full responsibility and blame for what happens under his watch and tenure.

This view of Pao as an automatic victim is special pleading and ironically, denies her the agency of a full adult that feminists claim others refuse to grant women.

And chauvinistic and sexist is a word reserved for men, but few seem to notice that. Equality goes both ways.

I looked around for a follow up to the lawsuits but the Vanity Fair article is still the most informative. Her husband's problems did go somewhere: he lost and is now appealing.

You can call it character assassination by proxy all you want, but the company people keep is still relevant, especially someone whose finances you are legally tied to, and when he's made exactly similar claims of discrimination over matters he had more than a professional interest in.

I allow for the fact that she's a victim, but the article above is not going to let us decide that. I do not listen and believe.

Luckily programming or computing hasn't changed at all since the 50s and 60s, so we can effortlessly assume that what people said about it then still applies perfectly to today's distributed, abstract, always-on landscape.

Even more, we can use the view from the 50s and 60s, a time which was not sexist at all, to explain why today is more sexist than ever.

Women outnumber men in colleges. Women have an easier time getting jobs. Single, childless women outearn men in that category.

Women just aren't choosing STEM. And apparently the solution is to tell them loudly how horrible the people they'd get to work with are. Who are some bizarre amalgam of a Goldman Sachs elevator and the cast of Big Bang Theory. Which you can effortlessly get a flood of coverage about, even though you're supposedly oppressed and are fighting the status quo.

Go away old media, go away tech feminists, go away white knights. If people stopped seeing women as victims, you'd lose your meal ticket, your power fetish and your moral superiority.

Not necessarily. Identity politics is when issues get defacto interpreted through the lens of social identities, even if that identity is irrelevant or even meaningless for the matter at hand.

Observing that there is such a thing as nerd culture does not really qualify. It typifies a particular set of practices and norms that set it apart from more mainstream sensibilities.

The way you get people to not care about real Nazis is to cry wolf every time you encounter a political position you don't like.

If we apply those same standards to antifa, they too are a violent, irrational hatemob with blood on their hands. The only difference is they have nice excuses about how it's ok when they do it because of systemic oppression. Even as they wield establishment power against their opponents.

Neonazis are not a significant threat. An abandonment of enlightenment values due to media induced hysteria is. We already saw what passes for unacceptable speech with Damore, even if it's eminently reasonable and moderate. The same people who can whip up a giant shitstorm over nothing are now saying you should trust them in knowing what fascism is.

No thank you. If you justify the means with the ends, you enable people who thrive in such an environment, and they are far more dangerous and insidious than a neonazi clearly advertising being an intolerant twat.

He didn't aim to piss off all his coworkers, he posted a memo in an internal forum designated for that explicit purpose, i.e. "skeptics". It was the sjw-types clutching pearls who sent it around and who leaked it to the press.

Damore engaged within the reasonable rules of debate. The people who disagreed turned it into a witch hunt and the media piled on with misrepresentation.

Damore is not the only person with agency at Google. Pinning it all on him as a scapegoat is ridiculous.

But one unhinged guy in a car is suddenly representative of the right wing? I say this being on the left.

I'm utterly appalled at what goes on in social media. People who a few years ago were quiet exemplars of sanity are now calling for violence, witch hunts and pretending like the US is one step away from civil war.

It's media that's doing this. A protest by one's own side is powerful, solemn and the height of democracy. If it's the other side, it's intimidating, primal and a rapid descent into tyranny. One rotten egg on your own side is just an unfortunate lunatic, on the other it's emblematic of the radicalization hidden just beneath the surface. The informational content has made way for a completely emotional, tribal way of looking at the world. It's just convenient narratives, with no one particularly interested in figuring out whether something is actually big, or just puffed up into the next big news cycle. News coverage now creates importance, instead of the other way around. The people who keep this going are the ones who benefit from eternal conflict, and it's not you and I.

This time the antifa found casus belli in the death of a compatriot. Just the same, the right could've gotten unlucky (or lucky) and had one of their own die to a u-lock to the head at Berkeley. Fill in your own examples, if you can still remember them a few weeks later.

Violence begets violence, especially if you broadcast it non stop for rageclicks and social validation points. It's not journalism anymore, it's just juvenile activism and pandering.

What is disingenuous is labeling a statement that starts with the words "I support diversity and inclusion" as being against diversity. Claiming he violated a code of conduct by doing so requires myopia of the highest degree.

Second, you are failing to distinguish between mass coercion by media based on lies, with a popular backlash based on an accurate account of the facts. Richards was in developer relations and made a giant stink when she demonstrated being unable to relate to developers.

If this is such a problem, do you think it's a problem too that English doesn't distinguish between singular and plural you?