Forum menu
Rather, that the bias could be present earlier, but lost in the statistics because of the relatively small number of senior managers.
But it's not present, or at least, it's not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40 - women and men earn the same regardless of their roles in a period spanning at least 20 years - a period where you are still being promoted and therefore seeing your earnings potential increase.
You have to keep in mind that the gender pay gap ONLY exists when you compare the earnings of all men and all women in full time roles (when you compare part time roles, men earn less than women). Therefore, if there is a gap, it is ONLY explained by the fact that for some unknown reason (the reason we are debating here), by the fact that women tend to occupy less well paid jobs than men beyond the age of 40.
Keep in mind that the difference is still relatively small - 14% is significant, but not a massive gap. It could be explained by a small number of relatively very highly paid executives, which we know are predominantly ocupied by men and which could account for a lot of the gap (because these are averages we're dealing with).
the question then becomes, what accounts for the fact that there are more men than women in these very small number of incredibly highly paid roles; I've offered the explanation above as being at least partly explained by choice. Bias is also very likely part of the explanation as well but it's not all of it - why then would these companies promote women up to a point but then not any further?
too abstract a level
Not providing any facts and making false statements is not abstract it's bullshit.
Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame's profession when there are more women in the profession, the women are better qualified and the age of men at those highest levels means that their children have left home so child bearing is not an issue? It's sexism simple as.
Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.
In the US women hold only 2.5% of the 1500 best paid corporate jobs in the country.
In France women hold only 11% of the best jobs in the teaching profession despite being more numerous. And that in a country with a disparity of only 10% between male and female average saleries (it's 15% for the OCDE)
Malvern Rider
*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:
“wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says’
Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I’ve seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I’m neither an ‘atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ otherwise I’d be out murdering, raping and building something called a ‘gulag’).
Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I’m agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won’t accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted
Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion. It's clear that you find Peterson's comments on the attack to be ill informed, ill judged and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation. You've asked Geetee about this directly at least six times. Now I'm guessing you're not going to participate in the upcoming Reddit ama with Peterson, but you could email him or use the [letter] function on his sub reddit and there's a very real chance that he'll reply. It appears to be something he does pretty regularly.
When I've tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you've dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic. Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to "psychic powers" too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual and demand it multiple times?
With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson's opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides. If you genuinely want to know Peterson's motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee's so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else and I'll certainly apologise.
Anyhow, GT, how do you explain the absence of women at the highest levels of Madame’s profession when there are more women in the profession,
Well it's either personal choice or it's bias. You can't say for sure which it is. From a data sufficiency perspective you don't have enough data to draw a conclusion either way. I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest, and a highly unionised work force, it's very unlikely that discrimination accounts for anything other than a small percentage of the vairance. I agree it will be a factor, but I cannot believe it's much of one.
Edit and you persist in ignoring ther fact there is a difference below 40 but that it is smaller. 2.9% someone quoted above.
I'm not ignoring it. I've presented an alternative data set also from the ONS that shoes something different. I've also said I've asked the ONS for an explanation but haven't had one and offered by own suggestion that it might be to do with over time pay.
But let's consider the possibility that it's 2.9%.
On the average salary of £27,000 a year that is a difference of £783. Not really much to get worked up about when you consider that in like for like roles, there is no pay discrimination. This is the result of personal choice.
You're ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women. The women in the same roles will tend to be better qualified but stuck in those roles due to the promotion of men over better female candidates.
Unions are part of the problem. They are male dominated.
geetee1972 wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
But it’s not present, or at least, it’s not evidenced by what men and women earn in the period up tot he age of 40
You were talking about representation in senior management, not earnings. Earnings aren't a good measurement of representation in senior management.
Essentially what you seem to be saying is that the representation gap in senior managers is only to be found in the age groups where most senior managers are to be found, and when you look at younger age groups where there are few senior managers, it's harder to find.
You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women.
How do you even start to measure that assertion? I'm ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.
Earnings aren’t a good measurement of representation in senior management
Well they are to a degree; pay tends to rise with seniority so if you have fewer people from a particular group represented at seinor management and then you measure relative levels of pay, you'll find that the under represented groups are likely earn less.
I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.
I think you can say that about everything Peterson says. Or everything he's said on the vids linked anyhow.
That's just a vague correlation; you can't use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.
In fact there is eveidence to support what I said:
That’s just a vague correlation; you can’t use it to measure representation, since not all higher paid jobs are senior management.
I agree, but then I'm still not sure what it is we don't agree on if anything?
There are slightly fewer women in high paid jobs than men and I'm all for creating a situation where the only factor that is responsible for this is personal choice. Multi-variate factor analysis shows us that only about 10% of the variance in pay between all men and all women is the result of bias so I would suggest we're more or less there.
I think you can say that about everything Peterson says.
Possibly, though he does tend to cite a heck of a lot of data when making his arguments.
With all this lobster comparisons surely the best way to stop the attacks against women by inadequate males shouldn't they just get a large number of elastic bands and put them over their hands?
Geetee wrote,
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
I agree, but then I’m still not sure what it is we don’t agree on if anything?
</div>
If in doubt, you could read the 2 posts where I explained it? You posted about how the difference in representation in senior management only becomes apparent after 40. I pointed out that most senior managers are over 40.
I personally think it;s very unlikely to be discrimination in a profession that has as many qualified female candidates as you suggest
This statement shows why you will never get it/
And yours shows why you also don’t get it.
Geetee - why do you have this misogynistic crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?
I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.
You’re ingnoring that the demands on women and men in like for like roles is different and more is often demanded of women.
How do you even start to measure that assertion? I’m ignoring it because you cannot possibly know that to be true.
Geetee - its well proven. Open your eyes man!
when you consider that in like for like roles, there is no pay discrimination.
Again - well proven there is especially in the higher levels in commerce
Make an argument by all means. don't be blind to data
And yours shows why you also don’t get it.
yeah, of course it does.
Have a read of some data - good explanations and plenty of links here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap
that’s a long and considered post and there’s not malice in whar you’re saying, you’re simply engaging in a debate. I just wanted to acknowledge that and say I respect it.
Thanks geetee. Likewise. Appreciated. I did, at the outset, state my intent to you (as the OP) that I'd like to debate a question 'one at a time' to try and avoid confusion/pile-on/the descent into presuppositional and accusatory madness that plagues internet-forum debates, often rendering much of such discussions worse than worthless. On this topic especially I'd go as far as to say dangerous (more later) We are talking about a killer. Possibly radicalised by something/someone? < To my mind this is an example of speculation. Anyway, back to our debate/difference of opinion:
geetee: I’ll be honest and confess I’m really not sure what we’re now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.
Let me see if I can help?
geetee: If JP genuinely thinks he can explain exactly why this chap Minassian did what he did, then I think he’s wrong to make that assertion. He can speculate at most and that’s it.
There is a biggie from my perspective and I think that you nailed that one on the head. We seem to fundamentally differ in our opinion/perception of his statement (in this instance about the about the killer) being 'speculation.'
"He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy"
To my mind that is not at all an example of 'speculation'.
geetee: But I think that’s what he was doing – I think he has developed an idea about the process of radicalisation that Minassian clearly underwent*
Firstly - what 'process of radicalisation'? Killing people is not, AFAIK, evidence in and of itself of 'radicalisation'. Broadly speaking one might argue that it is likely. Yet surely we can agree that assumption =/= evidence?
geetee: It looked like people were deriding him for doing this; as if the ideas he’s presenting are preposterous.
Clearly (sic) they aren’t preposterous because Minassian did what he did and there is innevitably some degree of explanation that runs the gamut of cause and effect.
Inevitably there is a cause and effect. But at which point (and with what evidence) do we jump in and to declare those to be? Any proper criminal investigation is assumedly in place so that we don't fall into the trap of working backwards from a hasty (or pet-theory) conclusion/assumption.
With respect, and please correct me if wrong, but it seems that you are doing here what I see Peterson doing. And that is proposing a conclusion/solution and working backwards from that. Missing piece of the jigsaw? Well, what about the killer's background, timeline, and associations?
Asserting a solution (to 'enforce monogamy') is not speculating upon (or even discovering any) 'process of radicalisation'.
You argued that Peterson's ideas 'aren't preposterous' simply because the killer killed.
I argue that he hasn't yet presented an 'idea' about the Toronto killer. Less still actual evidence. Instead he is broadcasting polemical and socio-political statements presented (a priori) as factual.
To recap:
geetee: I’ll be honest and confess I’m really not sure what we’re now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.
I think that the first fundamental difference might be neatly summarised in our earlier exchange where we seem to differ with concepts of clarity and objectivity:
Me: Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?
geetee: I don’t see what that has to do about anything? I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so.
Can we resolve that first?
tj
Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade
Difference of opinion represented in entirely negative insulting and personal terms. Again.
completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?
?
To my mind that is not at all an example of ‘speculation’.
Context
since this is, essentially, written transcript of verbal conversation then It depends the way it was said surely - you miss the non-verbal communication (body language, intonation of tone, facial expression) that may well have indicated to someone actually present that it was a proposition (in the context of discussion) rather than a statement - indeed, if you watch a few of JP's videos you'll see him do this a lot,
From someone who apparently knows the guy.
From someone who apparently knows the guy.
Guess he wasn't intelligent enough to understand him.
jimjam: Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion.
It’s clear that you find Peterson’s comments on the attack to be ill informed
Nope. I've no idea how informed he is regarding the Toronto killer. I tried to make that clear to geetee.
ill-judged
Yes certainly. At best. If it turns out that the killer was involved in some kind of ultra-misogynist online cult then 'ill-judged' wouldn't begin to describe my thoughts on JPs comments.
and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation.
Baseless maybe. As I said, my opinion is that JP offered no speculation or evidence upon which to base anything on. Just asserted general stuff about men's violence and monogamy.
You’ve asked Geetee about this directly at least six times.
Three times. He answered on the third. One was a reminder because chaff. You really need me to dig them out? £35 per hr?
jimjam: When I’ve tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you’ve dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic.
Teased. But sorry if it upset you, that was not my intent. It was more directed at Peterson's legion of followers/apologists in general. 'Petersonpretation' is a fledgeling discipline and I'm only recently acquainted. I tease again!
jimjam: Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to “psychic powers” too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual
So you say, but I haven't dismissed geetee's answer. And I didn't dismiss yours. In fact I followed straight on with a counter-question/request for clarification of your answer. Numbered 1 and 2. In case you missed it:
jimjam: He’s saying that the killer was in such a malevolent nihilistic state that he wants to punish the world/society/god for hurting him.
Me: 1. So why wouldnt he say that? I note that his more motivated supporters do seem to act as self-appointed translators. Maybe he should speak more clearly and objectively? AFAIK, he meant that the killer was angry at God. Now God is another word for society? AFAIK the killer was angry because no social/relationship success online + handily-accessed cult of nihilistic ultra-misogynist anti-social media-addicts.? But let’s wait for all the evidence to come in, no?
2. Do you have evidence that supports your translation/extrapolation? Shall we make it easier and move the goalposts? Claim that JP (and now you) was not referring specifically to the Toronto killer that he was specifically referring to?
Teabreak.
jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.
Not by me they haven't. And I might suggest you be more specific and address those commenters/quote them, otherwise it just explodes into useless generalising counter-strikes, forced bipartisan bollocks, cultic chaos and assumptive madness with no beginning or end. You might call that a business model these days. Youtube innit.
jimjam: If you genuinely want to know Peterson’s motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee’s so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else's
^ Two (wrong) assumptions delivered as a valid question
jimjam: and I’ll certainly apologise
Gifgate sucked. You stepped up. I tickled your foot, lost in translation, so you stabbed me in the eye with a fork and now won't stop or apologise unless I first satisfy your conditions for debating with the OP? Away with ye daftness. Anyway, the pay was terrible.
Malvern Rider
ill-judged
Yes certainly. At best. If it turns out that the killer was involved in some kind of ultra-misogynist online cult then ‘ill-judged’ wouldn’t begin to describe my thoughts on JPs comments.
To be honest MR I think that this incel thing probably merits it's own thread, perhaps even another thread about Dr.JP's relevance to them would be in order since I really struggle to believe he would or could mean that much to them. Virtually everything I've heard from Peterson which would fall under "advice to men" in the broadest sense would be exactly the kind of thing you would say to someone to discourage an "incel" mentality. Take responsibility, sort your life out, start making changes, don't blame other people, if all women are the problem then really, you're the problem and so on and so forth.
With regards to "angry at god" I believe that Peterson (rightly or wrongly) views this incel attacker in similar terms to U.S school shooters. The Columbine killers made a lot of incel type complaints in their journals... there's a video of Peterson talking about them (and other mass killers out there somewhere).
jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.
Not by me they haven’t.
You made allusions to hyper-masculinity, marital rape, no equality for women, slut shaming etc etc
And I might suggest you be more specific and address those commenters/quote them, otherwise it just explodes into useless generalising counter-strikes, forced bipartisan bollocks, cultic chaos and assumptive madness with no beginning or end.
This is exactly what it has been from page 1 and it's all par for the course on STW where the mods and the culture in general emboldens people to insult and attack people with opinions which contradict the hive. Are you suggesting there hasn't been constant bullying, insults and abuse? Addressing specific commentators and quoting them would only lead to more acrimony and negativity and detract from the tiny minority of people interested in honest debate.
Hold up there Tonto. I'm not having that.
Since when has the inability for some users to hold a civil conversation been the moderators' fault?
Would you prefer more rigorous censorship? You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is "attacking" someone else.
cougar
I’m not having that.
Since when has the inability for some users to hold a civil conversation been the moderators’ fault?
You've been contributing the thread, so presumably you've been reading it. If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it's okay. Just let me know so I can do that too. I was under the impression it wasn't. Mod innactivity while people are labeled misogynist, nazi, wife beater, racist etc is tacitly condoning this behavior.
I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot, in reply to them calling me an idiot. and yet we here we have people pouring on egregious, slanderous insults and blatant bullying.
Would you prefer more rigorous censorship?
I'd prefer consistency and impartiality. Too much to ask?
You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.
So if you personally see pornographic or offensive material do you wait to until it's reported? If you see direct personal attacks, bullying or abuse do you wait until it's reported? Are you incapable of acting until someone reports the post?
Mod innactivity while people are labeled misogynist, nazi, wife beater, racist etc is tacitly condoning this behavior.
You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.
Just go back and report the posts then....
Just let me know so I can do that too.
No need.
Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap
Yours, a reactionary, fear mongering shit stirrer.
RustySpanner
Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap
Yours, a reactionary, fear mongering shit stirrer.
And where in that post do you see an ad hom comparable to "racist" or "Nazi" ?
You do realise those words have meaning?
Any chance you could reply? Happy to debate it with you.
And fearmongering shit stirrer doesn't?
Good grief.
Take a look at yourself mate.....
Rusty
And fearmongering shit stirrer doesn’t?
Good grief.
Take a look at yourself mate…..
Say I email your employer tomorrow (assuming you have one). Rusty Spanner is a racist and here's why....or Rusty Spanner is a shit stirrer, and here's why. Do you think they carry equal meaning or importance or weight?
I can't remember the famous Shit Stirrer trials and subsequent hangings.
Take a look at yourself indeed.
Is that the kind of thing you're likely to do?
Is it possible for you to respond to one of my posts without insults?
And please, post an example of me calling someone a Nazi or racist.
Ta.
Rusty
Is that the kind of thing you’re likely to do?
Me? No. Of course not. I can't say the same for some of the ideologically obsessed posters who seem compelled to destroy people on this forum because they disagree with them.
Do you think "shit stirrer" and "racist" or "nazi sympathiser" are equal in terms of seriousness? Happy to debate it with you.
And please, post the examp of me calling someone a Nazi or racist.
You've been careful not to use those terms but many who share your opinions have no qualms in doing so.
You’ve been careful not to use those terms but many who share your opinions have no qualms in doing so.
We have all been learning from jp there...
Nice edit.
So which opinions are those then?
Do you think "shit stirrer" and "nazi sympathiser" carry equal weight? Would wearing a t shirt with each slogan be equally problematic? Would self applying the term on say, a Facebook biography be equally contentious?
Happy to debate it with you.
If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay.
Of course it's not ok. But you know as well as I do how the competitive debating goes on STW (and indeed on the Internet in general, this isn't a unique phenomenon). People will use whatever turns of phrase they choose in order to point score. How do you suggest we police that?
Say someone calls someone else a racist for making what could be construed as racist comments. Do we moderate the "insult" or do we moderate the "racist"? Essentially you're asking the moderators to take sides and to provide censorship, and that's no forum moderation I want any part in.
If someone is blatantly OTT then of course we'll stand on it, for other cases we rely on reported posts and if two or three factions are happily going at it hammer and nail then I can only assume that they're happy to be doing so.
I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot,
Liar.
You received a three week ban (well over a year ago now) after cumulative warnings. The last one before your ban said "You've been warned a few times now, next time will result in some time off." No-one in the history of the forum ever has received a three week ban for "calling someone an idiot" in isolation.
I’d prefer consistency and impartiality. Too much to ask?
One out of two. I strive to be impartial (see above) and I believe that the rest of the team do likewise. There will never be consistency because the moderators are a group of individuals who will make different decisions. C'est la vie. I've discussed this at length several times previously.
So if you personally see pornographic or offensive material do you wait to until it’s reported? If you see direct personal attacks, bullying or abuse do you wait until it’s reported? Are you incapable of acting until someone reports the post?
If something is clearly in breach of the rules then it will be removed. But the vast majority of posts are subjective. This is where a reliance on reported posts comes in. I can't speak on behalf of others but if I see something which could potentially require moderation but I'm not really sure then I'll generally err on the side of caution and let it slide. If a reader tells us it's problematic though, then it will merit further scrutiny.
Are you seriously arguing that you want stricter moderation? I don't think you'd like it if you got it.
I think perhaps all you really wanted to do with that comment was have a cheap shot. And as I said, I'm not having that.
Do you think “shit stirrer” and “nazi sympathiser” carry equal weight?
I never said they did.
However....
If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.
Merely pointing out your hypocrisy.
You can call me what you want, I don't mind. 🙂
But whining when someone does the same to you is a bit childish.
If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay.
Of course it’s not ok. But you know as well as I do how the competitive debating goes on STW (and indeed on the Internet in general, this isn’t a unique phenomenon). People will use whatever turns of phrase they choose in order to point score. How do you suggest we police that?
Competitive debating? You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.
Say someone calls someone else a racist for making what could be construed as racist comments. Do we moderate the “insult” or do we moderate the “racist”? Essentially you’re asking the moderators to take sides and to provide censorship, and that’s no forum moderation I want any part in.
Words have meanings, definitions. Racist would roughly be viewing people of other ethicities as inferior based on race/ethnicity. Nazi / Nazi sympathise - sympathetic to or supportive of the views and goals of nazis. It's not "he voted to leave the eu", therefore Nazi. You don't have to take sides to identify slurs.
I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot,
Liar.
You received a three week ban (well over a year ago) now after cumulative warnings. The last one before your ban said “You’ve been warned a few times now, next time will result in some time off.” No-one in the history of the forum ever has received a three week ban for “calling someone an idiot” in isolation.
Post the post that I was banned for then? I wasn't checking my emails every 10 seconds just in case I'd crossed the line of what STW considers "competitive debating" so was completely oblivious to any warnings, also why not post a warning in the thread itself? So you have an excuse to ban someone who wasn't obeying the "rules". I was banned for three weeks for calling someone an idiot. I was also banned for being a "racist" following a post wherein I used stereotypical anti Irish rhetoric to make an ironic point. I'm Irish, I make no secret of that and my IP should make it pretty bloody clear. Again, heavy handed biased moderating against anything perceived as questioning the echo chamber.
Are you seriously arguing that you want stricter moderation?
Impartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?
RustySpanner
But whining when someone does the same to you is a bit childish.
It's not "the same" though RustySpanner....that's the point. If you think it is you have a serious problem.
Again, I never said it was.
Does the fact that people insulted you give you impunity to insult me?
mpartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?
See you could make your point really well with some examples there....
This is a pithy observation and sums up the problem we have right now (which is that if you challenge received wisdom, you get called all manner of horrible things, like mysoginist, mentally derrainged etc)
https://fee.org/articles/jordan-b-peterson-isnt-criticizing-women-when-he-discusses-agreeableness/
RustySpanner
Again, I never said it was.
jimjam
If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.
Rustyspanner
Just let me know so I can do that too.
No need.
Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap
Seems to me as though you're making a pretty direct equivalence between shit stirrer and nazi sympathiser there. If I've misunderstood you, please clarify your intentions. Happy to debate it with you.
You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.
Liar, again.
You don’t have to take sides to identify slurs.
In your opinion.
Two sides are slurring each other, who's right? Either / both / neither? Do we stymie discussion on both sides in favour of the notion that no-one can ever say something negative ever?
Again, is that really what you want? You wouldn't like it if we did.
Post the post that I was banned for then?
You weren't banned for "a" post. I've already explained this once, do keep up.
I wasn’t checking my emails every 10 seconds
Were you not checking it every few months?
Impartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?
I answered this already too.
Cougar
You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.
Liar, again.
So now I'm a liar (again) for directly replying to your question as to how to moderate, with a suggestion as to how you should moderate? Hopefully anyone following will be able to see your use of the word liar is interesting at best. Should I check my emails now in case I've crossed some mod/ban/warning line in the sand I wans't aware of?
In your opinion.
Two sides are slurring each other, who’s right? Either / both / neither? Do we stymie discussion on both sides in favour of the notion that no-one can ever say something negative ever?
I dunno...if someone calls someone a rapist, you could consult the dictionairy and check what the word rapist means, then see if it applies in the context it was used. Radical ideas I know.
You weren’t banned for “a” post. I’ve already explained this once, do keep up.
Yes, I was banned for not checking my emails. Post the exchange I was banned for then. Or post the "racist" post I, as an Irish man made against the Irish.
I answered this already too.
Liar.
Seems to me as though you’re making a pretty direct equivalence between shit stirrer and nazi sympathiser there. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify your intentions. Happy to debate it with you.
Despite the fact that I've said twice that I've done no such thing? 🙂
You started whining because someone insulted you.
I'm merely pointing out your hypocricy.
Btw, the 'Happy to debate' was a polite way of inviting those who seem reluctant to answer any questions to do so.
You seem to have turned it into some kind of passive/aggressive insult.
Not a very good one, is it? 🙂
It is a play straight from the JP game plan, try and provoke a punishment so you can play the victim and martyr.
Challenging received wisdom innit.
So now I’m a liar (again) for directly replying to your question as to how to moderate, with a suggestion as to how you should moderate?
My sincere apologies, I misunderstood. I thought that's what you were saying we already do, rather than a suggestion as to what we should do. Cheerfully withdrawn, sorry.
Maybe we should follow your advice. It'd be a very quiet (and easy to moderate) forum very quickly.
I dunno…if someone calls someone a rapist, you could consult the dictionairy and check what the word rapist means, then see if it applies in the context it was used. Radical ideas I know.
And if the target is actually a rapist (great example by the way, you must be very proud), do we protect the rapist and warn / delete post / ban the accuser?
Yes, I was banned for not checking my emails. Post the exchange I was banned for then. Or post the “racist” post I, as an Irish man made against the Irish.
Your 'it'll be a ban next time' warning was in November 2016. Your suspension was in April 2017. Did you not check your emails for five months?
In any case, you're required to have a valid email address on file as part of the site T&Cs for just this reason. If you choose not to read it then that's your own lookout.
Liar.
Read my post and try again.
cougar
My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought that’s what you were saying we already do, rather than a suggestion as to what we should do. Cheerfully withdrawn, sorry.
Apology accepted.
And if the target is actually a rapist (great example by the way, you must be very proud),
Not proud, chosing an insult or inference that carries a serious social stigma in the hope that you will understand the seriousness of accusing someone of racism or nazi sympathies.
do we protect the rapist and warn / delete post / ban the accuser?
Do I need to answer that? Did I make my point so badly?
Your ‘it’ll be a ban next time’ warning was in November 2016. Your suspension was in April 2017. Did you not check your emails for five months?
Regardless, the bar or level at which banning offense was set was deemed to be calling someone an idiot. No doubt if I had called someone an idiot for voting to leave the EU it would have gone completely unchallenged. Feel free to post "the straw which broke the camel's back" the serious breach of the rules which meant a five month old warning was enforced with a three week ban then let people decide whether it was biased or not. An apology would be quicker, or you could post my "racist" anti Irish post which I was also banned for so that everyone can see what a horrible racist I am.
the bar or level at which banning offense was set was deemed to be calling someone an idiot.
No, for the third time now, the bar was set at you ignoring previous warnings.
If it's of any consolation, personally I wouldn't have banned you there, but it wasn't me that issued the ban. As I said, the moderation team are a group of individuals, consistency is challenging.
Do I need to answer that? Did I make my point so badly?
Well, you appear to be arguing in favour of moderating the accusation regardless of its truth. If I'm wrong then either you've made your point badly or I've horribly misunderstood.
you could post my “racist” anti Irish post which I was also banned for
Were you actually banned for that? I can see a warning but not a ban (though I concede the history might be inaccurate post-upgrade).
I went out on my bike today
THREAD DERAILLEUR DERAILER!!
*gets the hammer*
No, for the third time now, the bar was set at you ignoring previous warnings.
The bar was set at "abuse" and "idiot" (in reply to "idiot" still constituted a breach of a (5 month old) warning .... I find myself wondering how many warnings have been issued for much more serious behavior on this thread.
Well, you appear to be arguing in favour of moderating the accusation regardless of its truth. If I’m wrong then either you’ve made your point badly or I’ve horribly misunderstood.
I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.
I find myself wondering how many warnings have been issued for much more serious behavior on this thread.
You can wonder all you like, that's not something we should be disclosing.
I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.
And that's so very very difficult to prove / police because it's subjective. We're going round in circles now. Unless you're arguing in favour of moderatorial censorship 'just in case' and as I've already said, that's not a forum I want any part in.
Anyway. We seem to be fizzling out now, so I'm done here. I'm going to go and try and do something entertaining with my evening.
Jimjam just link to the posts that offended you then maybe we can work out what you are on about
THREAD
DERAILLEURDERAILER!!
Sheldon would be proud.
Cougar
I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.
And that’s so very very difficult to prove / police because it’s subjective. We’re going round in circles now. Unless you’re arguing in favour of moderatorial censorship ‘just in case’ and as I’ve already said, that’s not a forum I want any part in.
It's not subjective in the slightest, you just see it as such because it has become the norm to either make allusions to, or simply flat out accuse people of the worst possible things in order to gain an unearned sense of moral superiority while trashing someone's name/reputation/character. It seems that even questioning someone's mental health or attributing their opinions to psychological problems is also fair game in the spirit of "competitive debating".
If it's "subjective" then "aggression" is also subjective, and yet there was no deep pondering or thought given to banning me for using the word idiot in response to being called an idiot. You can argue semantics all you want but a decision was still made by anonymous individuals to issue a ban over something so innocuous. The culture the moderators and owners have created here is one where the benefit of the doubt will always be given to the posters who sling the worst insults and conflate organizations who perpetrated some of the worst crimes in human history with someone who merely disagrees with them politically. If you can't see this you have a serious problem.
You want no part in a forum with "moderatorial consorship" and yet you're part of one that has no impartiality, no concept of fairness or good faith and one where anyone not in the clique is constantly treading on eggshells while slanderers and liars act with complete impunity all the while pretending to be honest interlocutors.
Jimjam - there is only one side throwing insults around on this thread.
You don't like it because some of us challenge the prejudice and misogyny shown on this thread. So many factually incorrect statements made to support an abhorrent point of view. So much clear evidence ignored. so much unpleasantness shown. I have been called a Nazi onthis thread. Very nice.
tjagain
Jimjam – there is only one side throwing insults around on this thread.
tjagain
Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?
tjagain
I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.
Sorry, you were saying?
Lets just be absolutely clear. The fact that there is huge bias against women in the world of work and outside that world and it is well proven. Geetee denies this in the face of the mountains of evidence and quotes vile people like JP in his absurd arguments against the evidence.
This makes him a misogynist.
And with that I will back out of the thread again because of the reasons above.
I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile and because of this I have not been commenting on his threads. a I don’t want to exacerbate this
Seriously? He repeatedly posts on here and IMO makes up/exaggerates situations to prove some "point" of his. The fact that this BS thread has got to 14 pages must really float his boat. Mentally fragile? He deliberately goads people with his BS.
jimjam - I agree with a lot of your comments regards the mods on here. At times they totally overstep the mark. Not sure why they fell the need to throw their so called " ban hammer" around so much? Junkyard is a case in point, an annoying shit but did he ever do anything that bad to warrant a ban?
tjagain
geetee is misogynistic. His posts over a long period of time prove it. Fair comment.
I disagree. He's made posts about mens issues this doesn't = misogyny. Furthermore, you said "crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male". There's no such well proven bias, but you bring race into it to double down on just how vile he must be. He denies something which can't be proven, defined or quantified in any way, therefore he's a racist too. Believe in my god or you're evil by default.
I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile
And yet you bring up to score points in a debate, that's not the behaviour of someone who cares for another's well being, that's what you do when you're resorting to the lowest possible tactics to undermine the credibility of your victim.
There are at least three, maybe four forum members who I think are suffering from serious mental health issues, or perhaps substance issues. I've decided to completely refrain from replying to or debating with or addressing them in any way for fear of pushing them over the edge. Geetee isn't one of them imo, but if you genuinely believe what you say you should adopt the same tact.
I have in the past been emailed off forum by another poster asking me to back of from putting Geetee right on his prejudicial views for ( that persons) fear of the damage it does to his psyche.
You're doing it again.
gobuchul
Junkyard is a case in point, an annoying shit but did he ever do anything that bad to warrant a ban?
That depends doesn't it. From my perspective (ie that of someone who knows he'll be banned for calling someone an idiot) he was guilty of ban worthy behaviour every post, every day. From the perspective of someone with the bullet proof moral authority to question people's mental health, call them a racist, misogynist, nazi etc without fear of any rebuke ever, then no.
He was encouraged by and thrived in the STW mob culture. I even saw posts where mods made inferences of "letting him at/ setting him on" posters who were on the wrong side of the political fence.
I feel used and kinda sad today. I know I said maybe hasty things about The 1950s, but you didn't have to lie about me to get her. You could have had her all along. She was kind of a slutty decade in a 'margarine wouldn't melt in my pill-popping mouth' kinda way anyways, if you looked real hard. *sniff*
I hope you enjoy each other. But at least I can hold my head high. You have to look in the mirror every day, and know that you slandered me. Me and geetee had something nice going too. I respected geetee as the OP, and put a lot of effort into our little talk. I really thought for a hopeful moment that one tiny thread of debate was going ybe even to a place where we might sit and laugh at each other's respectively silly presuppositions about The Great Prophessor. But you took that away also. And when I spent day after day showing you the truth, yet you still lied about me. I wondered why. But know I feel better knowing that you where white-knighting for HER, even as you treated me like dirt. And yet still you kept on slandering me. Just to get her attention? Well I hope you're happy together. And we'll always have last night. But no. This is goodbye. You deserve each other I suppose. Yet when she finds out who you really are don't send your ironing back here again. My door closed already.
bump...
Thanks Jimjam I appreciate what you wrote.
Malvern sorry I’ve not been as engaged in the debate. In truth it’s nothing more Than a genuine limitation on time. I’m away with my two boys in the Lake District as my wife’s working, it’s half term and our nanny is on leave. So we’re havjng a boys week away. Currently sat in a pub after a good walk enjoying a pint of Theaktons and the boys are having an ice cream before we walk back to Ambleside YHA where we are staying (and that’s where I met my wife so this is a special trip for them).
Life is hard but it’s also very rewarding and I mean no one any malice. I have my views but I respect almost everyone I meet in some way. I hope to meet you guys one day also.
Anyone want a chuckle?
Watch JPs cod psychology 101 on YouTube
(Its like a Chris Morris pisstake)
https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1001227054556286976?s=19
Reminds me of an old flat mate genius mathematician who won the Space Invader tournament on a mix of stuff that meant he didn't sleep for days, but failed the first year as by the end of the year he'd pretty much fried his brain. I soon decided to move out but the hall's manager refused to refund my hall fees - for few minutes. I left with a cheque and found some sane people to live with.
Very good post, Jimjam
I'll just leave this here.
ftse firms excuses for not having women in boardrooms
- “I don’t think women fit comfortably into the board environment”
- “There aren’t that many women with the right credentials and depth of experience to sit on the board - the issues covered are extremely complex”
- “Most women don’t want the hassle or pressure of sitting on a board”
- “Shareholders just aren’t interested in the make-up of the board, so why should we be?”
- “My other board colleagues wouldn’t want to appoint a woman on our board”
- “All the ‘good’ women have already been snapped up”
- “We have one woman already on the board, so we are done - it is someone else’s turn”
- “There aren’t any vacancies at the moment - if there were I would think about appointing a woman”
- “We need to build the pipeline from the bottom - there just aren’t enough senior women in this sector”
- “I can’t just appoint a woman because I want to”
<h1></h1>
Shit, still going? Who won?
I’ll just leave this here.
Why?
We can all read the Guardian for free you know.