• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 03:25
CEST 09:25
KST 16:25
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202556RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams9Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 693 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8134

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8132 8133 8134 8135 8136 10093 Next
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.

In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!

NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious.
Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
July 20 2017 00:38 GMT
#162661
On July 20 2017 08:48 LegalLord wrote:
So, since we're probably at least a year away from any real charges, I'm curious what you folk think: how deep does this Russia thing go?

I think it goes deep enough for someone to get indicted on a felony.
and that there's probably at least one person who was working with the russians (probably not for them so much as with them, and doing it for the money).
which isn't really all that different from what I used to think;
past that it's mostly just enoug hstuff to warrant a thorough investigation, and see where the evidence goes.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 00:38:32
July 20 2017 00:38 GMT
#162662


Special reminder. And:



I wonder when we will see those taxes.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
July 20 2017 00:38 GMT
#162663
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21666 Posts
July 20 2017 00:43 GMT
#162664
On July 20 2017 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/887824970822418432

He has already admitted to firing Comey over the investigation. This is not a surprise.
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 00:57:23
July 20 2017 00:46 GMT
#162665
On July 20 2017 09:43 Gorsameth wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 09:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/matthewamiller/status/887824970822418432

He has already admitted to firing Comey over the investigation. This is not a surprise.

It compounds the evidence for obstruction. He keeps admitting that he will use the office of the president to end the investigation into his affairs.

Lot of good stuff on twitter from reporters, republicans and democrats.



I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
GreenHorizons
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States23221 Posts
July 20 2017 01:10 GMT
#162666
On July 20 2017 09:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Show nested quote +
Video from Baltimore Police Department body cameras shows an officer tampering with evidence in a case that sent a man to jail for more than five months, reports have claimed.

The Baltimore Sun’s Justin Fenton recently shared a 90-second video showing what appears to be three Baltimore Police officers standing on a street corner. The camera follows one officer as he walks into an alleyway and places what appears to be a bag of drugs in a trash heap.

He then goes back to the street, stands for several seconds, and returns to the alleyway. He removes the bag from the same trash heap and brandishes it in front of the camera.

Baltimore Police Department body cameras record and preserve footage from the last 30 seconds before they are activated, according to the department's body-worn camera policy.

Fox Baltimore reports that a man was arrested in January on drug charges connected to this video. Mr Fenton claims the man was held for months on a $50,000 bail that he could not afford.

According to Fox Baltimore, the man’s trial was scheduled for last week. It was stalled, however, when a public defender found the video and send it to the prosecutor in the case.

In an email obtained by Fox Baltimore, the prosecutor writes: ”I’ve passed [the video] up and we are all appalled … something is going to happen because of this revelation.”



The charges were eventually dropped, but the officer in question was reportedly called in to testify on another case just one week later.

“[The prosecutors] had knowledge,” Public Defender Debbie Katz Levi told Fox Baltimore. “They watched it and were appalled by what was on the video, and then for whatever reason made the choice to continue to call him as a witness.”

The Baltimore Police Department said in a statement that they take the allegations “very seriously,” and have launched an internal investigation.

“We are fortunate to have Body Worn Cameras which provide a perspective of the events as reported,” the department said.

The Baltimore Police Department began rolling out body cameras to the majority of its officers in July of 2016. Officers are instructed to turn on their cameras during enforcement or investigative activities, emergency vehicle operation, custodial transports, or “other activities of a potentially confrontational nature”.

A 2016 Justice Department investigation of the Baltimore Police revealed at least one case of an officer planting drugs on a suspect. A fellow officer said he did not report the incident immediately for fear of retaliation.

That same year, the department settled a lawsuit with a man who accused the department of orchestrating a bogus drug bust at his home.

The city was also the site of riots last spring, when a young, black man named Freddie Gray died in police custody. All charges against the officers involved were eventually dropped.

The Independent has reached out to the Baltimore Police Department and the State’s Attorney's office for comment.


Source



Good thing those cops that watched him plant evidence are all in jail pending trial too.

What's that? It's basically not illegal for cops to conspire in tampering with a crime scene and planting evidence? Well that seems odd....
"People like to look at history and think 'If that was me back then, I would have...' We're living through history, and the truth is, whatever you are doing now is probably what you would have done then" "Scratch a Liberal..."
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
July 20 2017 01:30 GMT
#162667
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
July 20 2017 01:35 GMT
#162668
On July 20 2017 10:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/887845632219787264

Alternative Facts. I wonder who fed him that line.
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 01:41:12
July 20 2017 01:39 GMT
#162669
On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that.

Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world.

Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well.

The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average.

If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)?

On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles.

The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist.

Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.

I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.

No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family.

You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.

I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses.

That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face.

I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes.

Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done.
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
July 20 2017 01:40 GMT
#162670
He's been diagnosed with brain cancer, not the flu...

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
July 20 2017 01:42 GMT
#162671
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
ticklishmusic
Profile Blog Joined August 2011
United States15977 Posts
July 20 2017 01:49 GMT
#162672
On July 20 2017 10:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He's been diagnosed with brain cancer, not the flu...

https://twitter.com/NewsHour/status/887842795582623744


this is the guy who belittled mccain's service during the vietnam war, so.
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
ChristianS
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States3188 Posts
July 20 2017 01:53 GMT
#162673
So I'm genuinely not just trying to find more reasons to dislike Trump, and I know this isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. But in the face of a likely-lethal cancer diagnosis, does "Get well soon" not feel a bit... trite? Like, I'm sure Obama or his social media whever put some thought into the politics of it so it's kind of manufactured, but his statement still felt a little genuine. Trump's felt to me like he never liked McCain and didn't want to try very hard to hide it.

Like, Trump has this reputation for being some kind of messaging genius, so why does that statement make him look like a bit of an asshole? Is the 4d chess narrative that Trump actually benefits somehow from being perceived as an asshole? Or am I the only one that got that vibe from Trump's statement about McCain?
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." -Robert J. Hanlon
Gahlo
Profile Joined February 2010
United States35143 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 01:55:29
July 20 2017 01:55 GMT
#162674
On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that.

Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world.

Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well.

The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average.

If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)?

On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles.

The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist.

Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.

I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.

No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family.

You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.

I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses.

That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face.

I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes.

Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done.

What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical.
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
July 20 2017 01:58 GMT
#162675
On July 20 2017 10:53 ChristianS wrote:
So I'm genuinely not just trying to find more reasons to dislike Trump, and I know this isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. But in the face of a likely-lethal cancer diagnosis, does "Get well soon" not feel a bit... trite? Like, I'm sure Obama or his social media whever put some thought into the politics of it so it's kind of manufactured, but his statement still felt a little genuine. Trump's felt to me like he never liked McCain and didn't want to try very hard to hide it.

Like, Trump has this reputation for being some kind of messaging genius, so why does that statement make him look like a bit of an asshole? Is the 4d chess narrative that Trump actually benefits somehow from being perceived as an asshole? Or am I the only one that got that vibe from Trump's statement about McCain?

this doesn't feel like it was written by trump, or particularly suggested (beyond a vague note to say something); and get well soon for a cancer diagnosis is odd;
this feels like it was written by an intern/low level staffer at the press secretary's office; and the higher ups failed to check it properly.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Nyxisto
Profile Joined August 2010
Germany6287 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 01:59:29
July 20 2017 01:58 GMT
#162676
On July 20 2017 10:53 ChristianS wrote:
Like, Trump has this reputation for being some kind of messaging genius, so why does that statement make him look like a bit of an asshole? Is the 4d chess narrative that Trump actually benefits somehow from being perceived as an asshole? Or am I the only one that got that vibe from Trump's statement about McCain?


I mean, he only is a messanging genius to people who like the fact that he is an asshole, so there's that. This is just how he communicates
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 02:03:54
July 20 2017 02:00 GMT
#162677
On July 20 2017 10:58 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 10:53 ChristianS wrote:
So I'm genuinely not just trying to find more reasons to dislike Trump, and I know this isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. But in the face of a likely-lethal cancer diagnosis, does "Get well soon" not feel a bit... trite? Like, I'm sure Obama or his social media whever put some thought into the politics of it so it's kind of manufactured, but his statement still felt a little genuine. Trump's felt to me like he never liked McCain and didn't want to try very hard to hide it.

Like, Trump has this reputation for being some kind of messaging genius, so why does that statement make him look like a bit of an asshole? Is the 4d chess narrative that Trump actually benefits somehow from being perceived as an asshole? Or am I the only one that got that vibe from Trump's statement about McCain?

this doesn't feel like it was written by trump, or particularly suggested (beyond a vague note to say something); and get well soon for a cancer diagnosis is odd;
this feels like it was written by an intern/low level staffer at the press secretary's office; and the higher ups failed to check it properly.


Is this the first press release/statement you've seen from this Administration? It's rare that such messages don't sound like this, have typos, or even misspelled words.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
ZerOCoolSC2
Profile Blog Joined February 2015
8982 Posts
July 20 2017 02:04 GMT
#162678
On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that.

Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world.

Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well.

The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average.

If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)?

On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles.

The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist.

Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.

I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.

No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family.

You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.

I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses.

That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face.

I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes.

Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done.

What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing.
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 02:17:18
July 20 2017 02:06 GMT
#162679
On July 20 2017 11:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 20 2017 10:55 Gahlo wrote:
On July 20 2017 10:39 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:33 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 09:11 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

Because it's male dominated and they have to deal with male egos. Would you take a negotiation on a multi-million/billion dollar cause seriously if a woman represented the other firm? Probably not. But a male counterpart would probably get that deal done and have the respect of the other party. It's as simple as that.

Women aren't less effective at those things, they are viewed that way. You're a prime example of why it's so hard for them to get their fair due in the corporate world.

Uhhh, you're aware that there are women CEOs, and still 30% of the consulting business is women, right? Clearly, women can compete with and outperform men. There are female partners at consulting firms, and female directors as well.

The issue is I raised is whether they do so on average.

If cultural and biological factors don't affect genders differently, why are so many college majors so imbalanced along gender lines (when each person chooses what to study)?

On July 20 2017 09:04 Plansix wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:56 Danglars wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:52 mozoku wrote:
On July 20 2017 08:30 KwarK wrote:
Not sure if sarcastic or genuinely asking why nobody has started a company with a business plan reading "hire women, pay them less".

Why is that any more ridiculous than "hire H1-Bs, pay them less"?

If the level of extremity for some reason bothers you (as opposed to just being condescending), why are consulting firms male-dominated? By far the largest cost in that business is people, but consultants at the Big 3 have 70/30 male/female gender splits. Reverse that to 30/70, pay them 10% less, and you've reduced your total labor costs by 4.2%. Seems like an obvious move, doesn't it?

My eyes don't tell me that sexism is causing women to be paid less. My brain tells me that women often take a career gap mid-career, are (on average) less aggressive in social situations (unfavorable in most occupations), and culturally are less pressured to be career-driven. Women are, on average, better at multitasking but worse at focusing exclusively on a single task (i.e. work). These are real cultural and biological factors that would presumably affect women's pay in the aggregate.

Why is it necessarily "sexism" instead of these factors that explain the pay gap? "I see it with my eyes" is not good enough evidence.

TBH that third paragraph on "less aggressive," "worse at focusing," and "biological factors" is enough to be called a sexist in Southern California circles.

The female attorneys I work for agree that it is pretty sexist.

Let them. If they're offended because they don't understand how an individual's traits and abilities are different from the average of individuals' traits and abilities, that's their own problem. Not society's.

I never said that your coworkers were less aggressive or worse at multitasking because they're female.

No, the issue you raised was that women should be paid less for the same amount of work. And if H1-B visa was the same thing, then it should be used in place of women. Those visas are for foreign workers coming here on a temporary basis. Not women in the workforce trying to support themselves and a family.

You're cherry picking the narrative to suit your needs.

I never said they should be paid less for the same work. What I said is that there are cultural and biological factors that plausibly may cause women to be slightly less productive workers, in the aggregate. For that reason, they may be valued less on average by businesses.

That says nothing about what an individual woman's worth in the market is relative to the average man. They can be worth far more or far less. The variance of a worker's productivity is nearly entirely within gender, not between gender. To assert that the between gender variance is zero conflicts with the fact that there's measurable differences between genders in everything else. It's simply false on its face.

I don't support any kind of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation because it doesn't make any sense. People should be paid what they're worth. If sexism is indeed the reason are paid less, then that's nonsense and needs to be fixed. But that needs to be clearly established before we start passing laws, unless they're being passed merely for political purposes.

Go back and read the first paragraph you wrote. You literally said to substitute the men for women, pay them less, and reduce cost of paying personnel. Or are you saying pay the men 10% less? Because that isn't what you typed. Either way, you're still advocating for paying women less than men for the same work being done.

What he was saying is that if the wage gap is as big as advertised, it would make no sense to have a man hired for a job when you could have a woman in that position. With equal competency, you'd get the same product for cheaper. Like mentioned a few pages ago with sometimes what is best from a capitalistic stance isn't always ethical.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's sexist to do that and then claim "capitalism made me do it." You pay the same for the work being done, regardless of sex. If a woman made more than simply because she was a woman, I'd argue the same thing.

In theory, if firms made more money by hiring "cheap female labor", then the demand for "cheap female labor" would rise until the price of female labor was the same as male labor.
Nevuk
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States16280 Posts
July 20 2017 02:09 GMT
#162680
I think that the current opinion on the pay gap is that a very large portion of it is explained by women taking a few years off to raise a child, while men are far less likely to do it. Any gap in work is going to depress wages.
Prev 1 8132 8133 8134 8135 8136 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 35m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Livibee 245
Creator 79
ProTech77
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 5598
ToSsGirL 265
Zeus 224
Larva 193
Backho 95
JulyZerg 89
Dewaltoss 59
NotJumperer 14
Britney 0
Dota 2
XaKoH 563
XcaliburYe122
Fuzer 65
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1108
Other Games
summit1g8361
hungrybox321
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 73
Other Games
BasetradeTV40
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Sammyuel 36
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1786
• Stunt774
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
3h 35m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
6h 35m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 2h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 6h
CSO Cup
1d 8h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 10h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.