Leaving rasfc

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:27:17 -0500, Erol K. Bayburt

On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT), Nicky

Why must members be part of the clique else evildoers?

Not a clique, a community and as for the rest of your self justifying
crap I ( and i suspect quite a few others)
sooooooo don't care.

No, clique. Nobody is right about that, even if wrong about other
things.

Nobody is obnoxious.

James Donald is obnoxious much more often than not.

David Friedman is preternaturally courteous, yet many posters and
exposters are convinced that he is completely obnoxious as well.
Because he disagrees with the clique.

Just as Nobody doesn't see just how obnoxious he is being, so the
clique doesn't see that it's a clique.

[Bill Swears]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Just as Nobody doesn't see just how obnoxious he is being, so the
clique doesn't see that it's a clique.

I'm uncertain that Nobody is willing to move an argument to here. I
think he's still suffering from "get the last word," compulsion.

So, would you consider me to be a part of the clique you see, or apart
of the clique?

Bill

[n***@googlemail.com]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Just as Nobody doesn't see just how obnoxious he is being, so the
clique doesn't see that it's a clique.

I'm uncertain that Nobody is willing to move an argument to here.  I
think he's still suffering from "get the last word," compulsion.
So, would you consider me to be a part of the clique you see, or apart
of the clique?
Bill

I think the original poster is seeing this in political terms which
seems to be one of the problems of the group in general.
I've been arguing with David since he arrived. I've met him. He is a
perfectly nice bloke but his adversarial approach and the sheer volume
of his posts has been a major force in changing its nature. It was
more collegiate before and for many people that made it a more
comfortable place to be. Particularly
when you are at the beginning of something, and an idea is not fully
formed, the adversarial approach is unhelpful to say the least. I know
that people have left because of that. However, I'm aware that these
days David is careful to talk more about writing on rasfc and that he
is usually courteous.

Groups do change there have been other factors in changing this one
not least some respected professional writers have left and they used
to post a lot. David is an insider now, even if some people wish he
weren't.

In my experience it is common to see any group of people as a clique
if you do not see yourself as part of it.

Nicky

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com
In my experience it is common to see any group of people as a clique
if you do not see yourself as part of it.

I think there are actually two quite different "cliques" at issue.

One consists of the insiders, myself included. As "nobody" noticed,
there is a real tendency for the insiders to be suspicious of new
posters, and to some extent to jump on new posters for behavior for
which they don't jump on insiders.

That seems to me perfectly normal human behavior, which would be
observed in almost any social group.

The other putative clique consists of people with a roughly similar set
of political views. From my standpoint, at least, the result is a
striking double standard. Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues, and get, so far as I saw,
no negative responses at all from the people generally sympathetic with
the ideology--indeed, claim the mantle of victim. Zeborah can, I am sure
honestly, believe that a serious problem with the group is that members
tolerate the expression of views she disapproves of--although she would
be rather unhappy if most members of the group attacked anyone who
expressed views I disapprove of.

[n***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com
In my experience it is common to see any group of people as a clique
if you do not see yourself as part of it.

I think there are actually two quite different "cliques" at issue.
One consists of the insiders, myself included. As "nobody" noticed,
there is a real tendency for the insiders to be suspicious of new
posters, and to some extent to jump on new posters for behavior for
which they don't jump on insiders.
That seems to me perfectly normal human behavior, which would be
observed in almost any social group.
The other putative clique consists of people with a roughly similar set
of political views. From my standpoint, at least, the result is a
striking double standard. Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues, and get, so far as I saw,
no negative responses at all from the people generally sympathetic with
the ideology--indeed, claim the mantle of victim. Zeborah can, I am sure
honestly, believe that a serious problem with the group is that members
tolerate the expression of views she disapproves of--although she would
be rather unhappy if most members of the group attacked anyone who
expressed views I disapprove of.

There is usually a division of views, true, there are cultural, gender
and generational divides as well as those that relate to philosophy,
taste and writing approaches.
It is too simple to see them as cliques or indeed as having fixed
membership.
I find myself often disagreeing with both.

Nicky

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com
In my experience it is common to see any group of people as a clique
if you do not see yourself as part of it.

I think there are actually two quite different "cliques" at issue.
One consists of the insiders, myself included. As "nobody" noticed,
there is a real tendency for the insiders to be suspicious of new
posters, and to some extent to jump on new posters for behavior for
which they don't jump on insiders.
That seems to me perfectly normal human behavior, which would be
observed in almost any social group.
The other putative clique consists of people with a roughly similar set
of political views. From my standpoint, at least, the result is a
striking double standard. Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues, and get, so far as I saw,
no negative responses at all from the people generally sympathetic with
the ideology--indeed, claim the mantle of victim. Zeborah can, I am sure
honestly, believe that a serious problem with the group is that members
tolerate the expression of views she disapproves of--although she would
be rather unhappy if most members of the group attacked anyone who
expressed views I disapprove of.

There is usually a division of views, true, there are cultural, gender
and generational divides as well as those that relate to philosophy,
taste and writing approaches.
It is too simple to see them as cliques or indeed as having fixed
membership.
I find myself often disagreeing with both.

Yes.

I said "putative clique," because I think there is some truth to the
picture but not complete truth. And I agree that you don't fit the
pattern very well--indeed, I would have a hard time guessing your views
on a fair number of the relevant issues.

[MA Stout]

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com
In my experience it is common to see any group of people as a clique
if you do not see yourself as part of it.

I think there are actually two quite different "cliques" at issue.
One consists of the insiders, myself included. As "nobody" noticed,
there is a real tendency for the insiders to be suspicious of new
posters, and to some extent to jump on new posters for behavior for
which they don't jump on insiders.
That seems to me perfectly normal human behavior, which would be
observed in almost any social group.
The other putative clique consists of people with a roughly similar set
of political views. From my standpoint, at least, the result is a
striking double standard. Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues, and get, so far as I saw,
no negative responses at all from the people generally sympathetic with
the ideology--indeed, claim the mantle of victim. Zeborah can, I am sure
honestly, believe that a serious problem with the group is that members
tolerate the expression of views she disapproves of--although she would
be rather unhappy if most members of the group attacked anyone who
expressed views I disapprove of.

There is usually a division of views, true, there are cultural, gender
and generational divides as well as those that relate to philosophy,
taste and writing approaches.
It is too simple to see them as cliques or indeed as having fixed
membership.
I find myself often disagreeing with both.
Nicky

Or more-than-both.
This reminds me so much of band group-dynamics. Every time somebody quit
from the band I roadied for, everybody would sigh with relief and get
back to making music--until the next round of wrangling began. Argument
is a fine sport in itself, but it makes no music.

[James A. Donald]

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 01:24:23 -0700, David Friedman

Post by David Friedman
I think there are actually two quite different "cliques" at issue.
One consists of the insiders, myself included. As "nobody" noticed,
there is a real tendency for the insiders to be suspicious of new
posters, and to some extent to jump on new posters for behavior for
which they don't jump on insiders.
That seems to me perfectly normal human behavior, which would be
observed in almost any social group.
The other putative clique consists of people with a roughly similar set
of political views. From my standpoint, at least, the result is a
striking double standard. Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues, and get, so far as I saw,
no negative responses at all from the people generally sympathetic with
the ideology--indeed, claim the mantle of victim. Zeborah can, I am sure
honestly, believe that a serious problem with the group is that members
tolerate the expression of views she disapproves of--although she would
be rather unhappy if most members of the group attacked anyone who
expressed views I disapprove of.

Three overlapping cliques:

1. The established successful writers clique, who exercise real
power, since they presumably know how to write, have connections to
editors and publishers, and so forth, so people respect their
knowledge and need their connections.

2. The politically correct clique

3. The well known poster group - to which, as a nice guy and prolific
poster, you belong.

The well known poster group is kind of ticked off by the hostility of
the politically correct clique to a well known poster.

Racefail 09 was confrontation between successful authors, and the
politically correct, which successful authors lost disastrously.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[David Friedman]

Post by James A. Donald
1. The established successful writers clique, who exercise real
power, since they presumably know how to write, have connections to
editors and publishers, and so forth, so people respect their
knowledge and need their connections.

That makes perfectly good sense a priori, but I don't see it actually
happening.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by David Friedman

1.  The established successful writers clique, who exercise real
power, since they presumably know how to write, have connections to
editors and publishers, and so forth, so people respect their
knowledge and need their connections.

That makes perfectly good sense a priori, but I don't see it actually
happening.

Is that your version of Rodney Dangerfield's catchphrase? I don't
think you've proven yourself as a fantasy writer yet, though you've
proven yourself as an economic and political writer.

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by David Friedman

1.  The established successful writers clique, who exercise real
power, since they presumably know how to write, have connections to
editors and publishers, and so forth, so people respect their
knowledge and need their connections.

That makes perfectly good sense a priori, but I don't see it actually
happening.

Is that your version of Rodney Dangerfield's catchphrase? I don't
think you've proven yourself as a fantasy writer yet, though you've
proven yourself as an economic and political writer.

If James were right, I wouldn't be in that clique anyway, for the reason
you say. But I don't think there is any clear distinction in the group
on the basis described. For one thing, I don't think there are any
really successful writers who are currently regulars--by which I mean
something more than writers who have published multiple books. Charles
Stross and Patricia Wrede would qualify, but neither is currently a
regular.

And I don't think the several writers who have published multiple sf
books are seen as having some special power.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by David Friedman

1.  The established successful writers clique, who exercise real
power, since they presumably know how to write, have connections to
editors and publishers, and so forth, so people respect their
knowledge and need their connections.

That makes perfectly good sense a priori, but I don't see it actually
happening.

Is that your version of Rodney Dangerfield's catchphrase? I don't
think you've proven yourself as a fantasy writer yet, though you've
proven yourself as an economic and political writer.

If James were right, I wouldn't be in that clique anyway, for the reason
you say. But I don't think there is any clear distinction in the group
on the basis described. For one thing, I don't think there are any
really successful writers who are currently regulars--by which I mean
something more than writers who have published multiple books. Charles
Stross and Patricia Wrede would qualify, but neither is currently a
regular.

Stross dropped in one time while I was looking, and Patricia Wrede
seemed to be a regular, and as I recall both were treated with
respect. I may, of course, have been reading my own expectations into
it, but my sense was that they were treated with a great deal of
respect.

Post by David Friedman
And I don't think the several writers who have published multiple sf
books are seen as having some special power.
--
 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by David Friedman
If James were right, I wouldn't be in that clique anyway, for the reason
you say. But I don't think there is any clear distinction in the group
on the basis described. For one thing, I don't think there are any
really successful writers who are currently regulars--by which I mean
something more than writers who have published multiple books. Charles
Stross and Patricia Wrede would qualify, but neither is currently a
regular.

Stross dropped in one time while I was looking, and Patricia Wrede
seemed to be a regular, and as I recall both were treated with
respect. I may, of course, have been reading my own expectations into
it, but my sense was that they were treated with a great deal of
respect.

Patricia was treated with a great deal of respect, which she
deserved--not for being a successful writer (which she is--I think my
daughter was a fan of hers before she knew that I knew Patricia online),
but for being an unusually helpful participant in discussions about
writing. Charles I think less so, both because he was here much less and
contributed much less.

But currently, neither of them is participating in the group.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by David Friedman
If James were right, I wouldn't be in that clique anyway, for the reason
you say. But I don't think there is any clear distinction in the group
on the basis described. For one thing, I don't think there are any
really successful writers who are currently regulars--by which I mean
something more than writers who have published multiple books. Charles
Stross and Patricia Wrede would qualify, but neither is currently a
regular.

Stross dropped in one time while I was looking, and Patricia Wrede
seemed to be a regular, and as I recall both were treated with
respect. I may, of course, have been reading my own expectations into
it, but my sense was that they were treated with a great deal of
respect.

Patricia was treated with a great deal of respect, which she
deserved--not for being a successful writer (which she is--I think my
daughter was a fan of hers before she knew that I knew Patricia online),
but for being an unusually helpful participant in discussions about
writing.

I'm aware that she was helpful, but I don't think it's a case of just
one or the other. For one thing, a person can't actually help anyone
else if other people reject the person's help, and being high status
to begin with can grease the wheels in that department, inducing
others to accept her advice, thereby making it possible for her to be
helpful. As for her generosity, while that is in part a function her
character, it may also have been in part a function of the situation
she found herself in. Try the following experiment. Two people. One of
them spends ten minutes hating you and displays ignorance and
misinformation and downright malicious misrepresentation of your
works. The other one spends ten minutes appreciating you and displays
familiarity with and comprehension of your works. Then let them both
ask you for help picking out a cell phone with a keyboard. See which
one you feel more generous toward.

[James A. Donald]

Bill Swears

Post by Bill Swears
I'm uncertain that Nobody is willing to move an
argument to here. I think he's still suffering from
"get the last word," compulsion.

Then in the main group, make all your replies something
like "you are completely wrong, and I explain why in
rec.arts.sf.misc"

In which case people with the get-the-last-word
compulsion, including myself, will be compelled to move
to rec.arts.sf.misc.

Moving to rec.arts.sf.misc is not going to happen by
telling *other* people to move to rec.arts.sf.misc, any
more than people will stop using "gay" as an insult when
Zeborah and company use "teabagger" as an insult.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Graham Woodland]

David Friedman: very smart guy, poor social skills
(typical nerd), unfailingly courteous, nice guy,
makes conscientious efforts, sometimes rather
undignified and excessive efforts, to fit in

Graham Woodland

David is one of the good guys..

Quite so.

You, James, appear to neglect the simpler possibility
that David bears an aura of likeability not because he
is trying too hard to fit in(!!), but because he
really does like people and find them interesting by
default.

He is markedly more confrontational and less eager to
please with people who are not part of the group -
therefore some of his motives are less admirable and
less dignified than liking people and finding them
interesting.

I also cut my friends, and even my regular sparring-partners,
more slack than J Random Stranger. Partly this is through liking
or camaraderie, but also partly because I'm less likely to
misunderstand them.

I don't wish to further extend the specific conversation about
David, as I fear that would-be analysis of third parties too soon
becomes presumptuous in their presence and snake-toothed in their
absence, and I find it more comfortable to err on the side of
safety. But I thought I had things that needed, once, to be said.

I find people interesting too - but generally I find
evil and madness the most interesting aspect of people -
understanding people does not necessarily result in me
sympathizing or respecting.

My interests are the reverse of yours, then. I think goodwill
and sanity are as much more various and interesting, as they are
difficult and rewarding. I agree with you about the last clause
wholeheartedly. To really understand real rottenness must surely
always be to loathe it the more -- if one is not rotted from
within through the process.

I'd *love* to know what orthodoxy covers everybody
from hardcore Communist to militant anti-statist
conservative

The only conservative I have noticed outing himself in
this group as a conservative is the very far from
militant Ric Locke, who describes the orthodoxy in this
group as "stifling" and "Leninist".

I don't think many Communists have outed themselves, either --
the only one we once had has long left for other pursuits,
finding the atmosphere aggravating and oppressive. Which I also
thought was a shame.

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

Julian's sentiments are often most eloquently conservative, in
one of our best and most time-honoured cispondian veins. I have
just discovered by Googling that another poster I thought was
clearly conservative does not so self-identify, though she surely
has not exhibited much patience with the views you and Ric
dislike so much. It also turns out that I was so wrong about the
other 'obvious' candidate that I didn't even hit the dartboard.
So I will give you some ground on that one: there are fewer
*vocal* conservatives here than I thought, and therefore
presumably fewer conservatives all told.

There is, of course, a clear reason in conservative thought why
constant chatter of politics should be strictly for the squirrels
and radicals. Despite my own disposition to chatter, and my
reasons for doing so, it is even a logic to which I partly
subscribe. So I'd always expect conservative talk to be
*somewhat* under-represented, as compared with progressive or
(any) radical.

I also beg leave to disagree with your implicit assumption that
noise-making equals useful victory in anybody's ears but the
noisy one's own. Disdain, or going off to get a drink and
ignoring the loud boor who is hovering strategically over the
nibbles like an ignoble guardian griffin, does not equal
concession -- whatever the persuasion of a particular boor may
be. But we have had this exchange before, and no doubt you will
find it no more convincing than last time.

Any militant anti statists in this group, including
myself, keep their views fairly quiet, knowing that
plain speaking will get one howled down by a screaming
mob.

And if what you say here is not plain speaking, then I guess you
do well to do so.

I do not love the state, and I am not specially subtler about
saying so than it amuses me to be about most things; but more
generally, I do often bite my teeth about Grandad's table-taboos
of politics and religion in this place, as well as one or two
other things which tread needlessly on very specific personal
corns of people whom I esteem.

It is fair comment that I am not militant. I do not do militant,
about anything, unless all other choices are vicious or unbearable.

I *do* dislike the fact that our little local problems so impair
my ability to come right out and talk about some of my writing
issues. An it please you, you may even ascribe this reluctance
with the WNIP to the activities of a stifling Leninist claque.
But I tell you plainly, that is not even on the edges of why I
can't talk about my fantasy Communist Commonwealth here with any
profit. Ockham's Razor disinclines me to multiply the entities
of explanation.

The group dynamic is just well buggered when it comes to certain
topics, and I have better things to do than waste my time
embuggering it further. I notice from Lucy's brief re-appearance
that she appears to have come to an almost *exactly* similar
conclusion, from a political stance almost diametrically opposed
to my own. And I think -- though again I doubt you will agree --
that this is no accident at all.

Who did you have in mind as a militant anti statist
conservative?

I actually had you in mind, and our perspectives on "fairly
quiet" appear to differ somewhat. (Predictably, that is how I
would describe my own level of restraint, which I guess you'd
describe as inaudible.) I don't know anybody else who exhibits
the whole trinity. Yes, I know there are some things you are not
conservative about at all; but it sure looks like the overall
effect from over here.

If you find the label risible or offensive, then I concede your
superior authority in this case, and withdraw it.

But "from Lucy to James", or "from Aqua to Ric", or even "from
Zeborah to Julian" are pretty *wide* distributions by most
people's measure, whether they be skewed or no. The problems
here have been real enough, lark knows, but I can't construct a
party line out of them for love nor money.

Think that's as far as I want to take that either -- writing to
go, new places to do. That's how I see it, though.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:43:01 +0100, Graham Woodland
[...]

Post by Graham Woodland

The only conservative I have noticed outing himself in
this group as a conservative is the very far from
militant Ric Locke, who describes the orthodoxy in this
group as "stifling" and "Leninist".

I don't think many Communists have outed themselves,
either -- the only one we once had has long left for
other pursuits, finding the atmosphere aggravating and
oppressive. Which I also thought was a shame.

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

Erol K. Bayburt.

Post by Graham Woodland
Julian's sentiments are often most eloquently conservative, in
one of our best and most time-honoured cispondian veins.

Indeed. (And you have now got me thinking of Julian as a
transponder.)

[...]

Post by Graham Woodland

Who did you have in mind as a militant anti statist
conservative?

I actually had you in mind, and our perspectives on
"fairly quiet" appear to differ somewhat. (Predictably,
that is how I would describe my own level of restraint,
which I guess you'd describe as inaudible.)

Yours is sufficient that I was very mildly surprised when I
read your blog.

[...]

Brian

[Erol K. Bayburt]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:58:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 19:43:01 +0100, Graham Woodland
[...]

Post by Graham Woodland

The only conservative I have noticed outing himself in
this group as a conservative is the very far from
militant Ric Locke, who describes the orthodoxy in this
group as "stifling" and "Leninist".

I don't think many Communists have outed themselves,
either -- the only one we once had has long left for
other pursuits, finding the atmosphere aggravating and
oppressive. Which I also thought was a shame.

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

Erol K. Bayburt.

I'm libertarian, not conservative.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:45:42 -0500, "Erol K. Bayburt"

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:58:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

[...]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

I'm libertarian, not conservative.

My apologies: I could have sworn that I remembered your
having made an explicit comment about being a conservative.

Brian

[Bill Swears]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:58:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

I'm libertarian, not conservative.

As a libertarian, you can be as conservative as you please. We don't
have a conservatives party. :-)

Bill

[David Friedman]

Post by Bill Swears

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:58:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

I'm libertarian, not conservative.

As a libertarian, you can be as conservative as you please. We don't
have a conservatives party. :-)

At a slight tangent ... . "Conservative" is a particularly ambiguous
term. I can see a sense in which Julian Flood could be described as a
conservative, but I have no feeling for what his political views are or
what party he would vote for. And there is a sense in which I am a
conservative anarchist. The most attractive set of institutions I can
work out contain no government--but I don't think that trying to get
there in a hurry would be sensible.

It's further confusing that, for quite a while, libertarians largely saw
themselves as part of an alliance with conservatives, often labeled
"conservative." I had hoped that Obama might change that by making some
serious effort to pull libertarians, broadly defined, out of the
Republican party, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

[Bill Swears]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Bill Swears

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:58:00 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

I'm libertarian, not conservative.

As a libertarian, you can be as conservative as you please. We don't
have a conservatives party. :-)

At a slight tangent ... . "Conservative" is a particularly ambiguous
term. I can see a sense in which Julian Flood could be described as a
conservative, but I have no feeling for what his political views are or
what party he would vote for. And there is a sense in which I am a
conservative anarchist. The most attractive set of institutions I can
work out contain no government--but I don't think that trying to get
there in a hurry would be sensible.
It's further confusing that, for quite a while, libertarians largely saw
themselves as part of an alliance with conservatives, often labeled
"conservative." I had hoped that Obama might change that by making some
serious effort to pull libertarians, broadly defined, out of the
Republican party, but it doesn't seem to be happening.

I'm somewhat conservative, but notice that things I consider
conservative can come from both major parties and the libertarians.

I can remember an article about RAH, wherein it came out that Heinlein
was called liberal, conservative, anarchist, and libertarian at
different times depending on what he was supporting or fighting.

Bill

[James A. Donald]

Post by Brian M. Scott

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

"Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

And what makes you think Erol K. Bayburt is a conservative? If he is,
he keeps it pretty close to his chest, which was my point. I did
a reasonable job of googling up his political views, found nothing.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Bill Swears]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Brian M. Scott

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

"Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

And what makes you think Erol K. Bayburt is a conservative? If he is,
he keeps it pretty close to his chest, which was my point. I did
a reasonable job of googling up his political views, found nothing.

That's you drawing the lines on what can be considered "conservative."
Erol has been in hot water on this board quite a few times for arguing
the anti-PC/liberal side.

Bill

[Erol K. Bayburt]

Post by Bill Swears

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Brian M. Scott

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

"Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

And what makes you think Erol K. Bayburt is a conservative? If he is,
he keeps it pretty close to his chest, which was my point. I did
a reasonable job of googling up his political views, found nothing.

That's you drawing the lines on what can be considered "conservative."
Erol has been in hot water on this board quite a few times for arguing
the anti-PC/liberal side.

Putting aside a likely-unproductive argument about how often "quite a
few times" is, I'd like to note first that arguing against "liberal"
and/or "politically correct" positions does not make one a
conservative rather than a libertarian.

Second, "been in hot water on this board [sic] quite a few times for
arguing the anti-PC/liberal side." is a telling comment on the degree
of orthodoxy and intolerance found in rasfc.

[n***@googlemail.com]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Bill Swears

Post by Erol K. Bayburt

Post by Brian M. Scott

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and their
heads down.

"Brian M. Scott"

Post by Brian M. Scott
Erol K. Bayburt.

And what makes you think Erol K. Bayburt is a conservative?  If he is,
he keeps it pretty close to his chest, which was my point.  I did
a reasonable job of googling up his political views, found nothing.

That's you drawing the lines on what can be considered "conservative."
Erol has been in hot water on this board quite a few times for arguing
the anti-PC/liberal side.

Putting aside a likely-unproductive argument about how often "quite a
few times" is, I'd like to note first that arguing against "liberal"
and/or "politically correct" positions does not make one a
conservative rather than a libertarian.
Second, "been in hot water on this board [sic] quite a few times for
arguing the anti-PC/liberal side." is a telling comment on the degree
of orthodoxy and intolerance found in rasfc.
--

I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us are Brits whose
view of the world differs significantly.
I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is that dominates. Even among those
who have left there is not single political view though it is
interesting to note that the majority of them are women and perhaps
the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our essential equality?
The other stuff: 'conservative', 'libertarian,' 'liberal' are concepts
you seem to be using in an uniquely US way which make no sense to
those of us from elsewhere.

Nicky

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Second, "been in hot water on this board [sic] quite a few times for
arguing the anti-PC/liberal side." is a telling comment on the degree
of orthodoxy and intolerance found in rasfc.
--

I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us are Brits whose
view of the world differs significantly.
I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is that dominates. Even among those
who have left there is not single political view though it is
interesting to note that the majority of them are women and perhaps
the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our essential equality?
The other stuff: 'conservative', 'libertarian,' 'liberal' are concepts
you seem to be using in an uniquely US way which make no sense to
those of us from elsewhere.

In the U.S. context, "liberal" means a bit left of center on economic
issues--what I sometimes describe as democratic socialism in dilute
aqueous solution--usually combined with support for free speech and
similar civil liberties issues.

"Libertarian" is what 19th century (aka "classical") liberals started
calling themselves when the dilute socialists stole their label,
restricted by some but not all users to the more extreme versions of
that position. In favor of much less government involvement in the
economy, lower taxes, also in favor of free speech, much less government
interference in personal lives, and the like.

"Conservative" is probably the most complicated of the three. Currently,
it tends to be associated with support for traditional morality,
sometimes including support for government interference to enforce it.
It also tends to be associated with support for the military,
anti-communist policies abroad (a bit obsolete due to the current
shortage of communist regimes abroad, and also a position shared with
many but not all liberals), a more positive view of both traditional and
fundamentalist religions. It's also associated with support for less
government involvement in the economy and lower taxes, but not very
consistently so, in part because it is also associated with nationalism,
which can lead to support for protective tariffs, subsidies, and the
like.

Part of what confuses all of this is that, for a long time, there was a
sort of de facto political coalition between libertarians and
conservatives. This resulted in conservatives accepting the libertarian
economic position, although with limited enthusiasm, the libertarians
accepting the conservative foreign policy position, ditto, and the two
factions agreeing to disagree over issues of government interference wrt
things such as sex and drugs. That coalition has been coming apart for
some decades, with the result that libertarians became increasingly
unwilling to accept the label "conservative." The Bush administration
shoved that process along quite a lot. There are poll results showing
that libertarians, broadly defined, voted for Bush in the first election
by a large majority, in the second by a small majority.

In Europe, "liberal" has retained much more of its old meaning, although
I don't know enough about the nuances to say how much.

A further complication is that there are various issues that have gotten
identified with the political categories for reasons not always obvious.
Thus liberals are likely to be in favor of more restrictions on
ownership of firearms, conservatives and libertarians against. Liberals
are likely to believe more in the influence of environment in how people
turn out and less in the influence of genes. Liberals are more likely to
believe that differences between the genders, other than the obvious
physical ones, are insignificant. Liberals are more likely to be
environmentalists. And so on.

Hope that helps.

[n***@googlemail.com]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Second, "been in hot water on this board [sic] quite a few times for
arguing the anti-PC/liberal side." is a telling comment on the degree
of orthodoxy and intolerance found in rasfc.
--

I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us are Brits whose
view of the world differs significantly.
I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is that dominates. Even among those
who have left there is not single political view though it is
interesting to note that the majority of them are women and perhaps
the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our essential equality?
The other stuff: 'conservative', 'libertarian,' 'liberal' are concepts
you seem to be using in an uniquely US way which make no sense to
those of us from elsewhere.

In the U.S. context, "liberal" means a bit left of center on economic
issues--what I sometimes describe as democratic socialism in dilute
aqueous solution--usually combined with support for free speech and
similar civil liberties issues.
"Libertarian" is what 19th century (aka "classical") liberals started
calling themselves when the dilute socialists stole their label,
restricted by some but not all users to the more extreme versions of
that position. In favor of much less government involvement in the
economy, lower taxes, also in favor of free speech, much less government
interference in personal lives, and the like.
"Conservative" is probably the most complicated of the three. Currently,
it tends to be associated with support for traditional morality,
sometimes including support for government interference to enforce it.
It also tends to be associated with support for the military,
anti-communist policies abroad (a bit obsolete due to the current
shortage of communist regimes abroad, and also a position shared with
many but not all liberals), a more positive view of both traditional and
fundamentalist religions. It's also associated with support for less
government involvement in the economy and lower taxes, but not very
consistently so, in part because it is also associated with nationalism,
which can lead to support for protective tariffs, subsidies, and the
like.
Part of what confuses all of this is that, for a long time, there was a
sort of de facto political coalition between libertarians and
conservatives. This resulted in conservatives accepting the libertarian
economic position, although with limited enthusiasm, the libertarians
accepting the conservative foreign policy position, ditto, and the two
factions agreeing to disagree over issues of government interference wrt
things such as sex and drugs. That coalition has been coming apart for
some decades, with the result that libertarians became increasingly
unwilling to accept the label "conservative." The Bush administration
shoved that process along quite a lot. There are poll results showing
that libertarians, broadly defined, voted for Bush in the first election
by a large majority, in the second by a small majority.
In Europe, "liberal" has retained much more of its old meaning, although
I don't know enough about the nuances to say how much.
A further complication is that there are various issues that have gotten
identified with the political categories for reasons not always obvious.
Thus liberals are likely to be in favor of more restrictions on
ownership of firearms, conservatives and libertarians against. Liberals
are likely to believe more in the influence of environment in how people
turn out and less in the influence of genes. Liberals are more likely to
believe that differences between the genders, other than the obvious
physical ones, are insignificant. Liberals are more likely to be
environmentalists. And so on.
Hope that helps.

It does thanks. I was also trying to point out, subtly :) that for
many in rasfc these labels and these precise alliances are meaningless
and applying thrm to people from elsewhere is unhelpful to say the
least.

Nicky

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Second, "been in hot water on this board [sic] quite a few times for
arguing the anti-PC/liberal side." is a telling comment on the degree
of orthodoxy and intolerance found in rasfc.
--

I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us are Brits whose
view of the world differs significantly.
I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is that dominates. Even among those
who have left there is not single political view though it is
interesting to note that the majority of them are women and perhaps
the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our essential equality?
The other stuff: 'conservative', 'libertarian,' 'liberal' are concepts
you seem to be using in an uniquely US way which make no sense to
those of us from elsewhere.

In the U.S. context, "liberal" means a bit left of center on economic
issues--what I sometimes describe as democratic socialism in dilute
aqueous solution--usually combined with support for free speech and
similar civil liberties issues.
"Libertarian" is what 19th century (aka "classical") liberals started
calling themselves when the dilute socialists stole their label,
restricted by some but not all users to the more extreme versions of
that position. In favor of much less government involvement in the
economy, lower taxes, also in favor of free speech, much less government
interference in personal lives, and the like.
"Conservative" is probably the most complicated of the three. Currently,
it tends to be associated with support for traditional morality,
sometimes including support for government interference to enforce it.
It also tends to be associated with support for the military,
anti-communist policies abroad (a bit obsolete due to the current
shortage of communist regimes abroad, and also a position shared with
many but not all liberals), a more positive view of both traditional and
fundamentalist religions. It's also associated with support for less
government involvement in the economy and lower taxes, but not very
consistently so, in part because it is also associated with nationalism,
which can lead to support for protective tariffs, subsidies, and the
like.
Part of what confuses all of this is that, for a long time, there was a
sort of de facto political coalition between libertarians and
conservatives. This resulted in conservatives accepting the libertarian
economic position, although with limited enthusiasm, the libertarians
accepting the conservative foreign policy position, ditto, and the two
factions agreeing to disagree over issues of government interference wrt
things such as sex and drugs. That coalition has been coming apart for
some decades, with the result that libertarians became increasingly
unwilling to accept the label "conservative." The Bush administration
shoved that process along quite a lot. There are poll results showing
that libertarians, broadly defined, voted for Bush in the first election
by a large majority, in the second by a small majority.
In Europe, "liberal" has retained much more of its old meaning, although
I don't know enough about the nuances to say how much.
A further complication is that there are various issues that have gotten
identified with the political categories for reasons not always obvious.
Thus liberals are likely to be in favor of more restrictions on
ownership of firearms, conservatives and libertarians against. Liberals
are likely to believe more in the influence of environment in how people
turn out and less in the influence of genes. Liberals are more likely to
believe that differences between the genders, other than the obvious
physical ones, are insignificant. Liberals are more likely to be
environmentalists. And so on.
Hope that helps.

It does thanks. I was also trying to point out, subtly :)  that for
many in rasfc these labels and these precise alliances are meaningless
and applying thrm to people from elsewhere is unhelpful to say the
least.

It's potentially confusing, but I don't think entirely useless.
There's a good deal of correlation between the views of the American
left and the views of the European left, some, but I think less,
between the U.S. right and the European right. And if you think of
libertarians as a somewhat more extreme version of European liberals,
I think you get at least a rough match.

One commentator not long ago was arguing that we now know what Obama
really is--he's a Swede. By which he meant that Obama's policies were
aimed at making the U.S. more like the Scandinavian "socialist"
welfare states.

Indeed, I think one of the differences between left and right in the
U.S. at present is that the left tends to admire European political
institutions and think they are on the whole superior to those of the
U.S., while the right tends towards the opposite view. I think that's
true of both conservatives and libertarians.

[Catja Pafort]

Post by d***@gmail.com
if you think of
libertarians as a somewhat more extreme version of European liberals,
I think you get at least a rough match.

Not from where we're sitting.

Post by d***@gmail.com
One commentator not long ago was arguing that we now know what Obama
really is--he's a Swede. By which he meant that Obama's policies were
aimed at making the U.S. more like the Scandinavian "socialist"
welfare states.

Social democratic, but yes. Those really really dangerous beliefs that
everybody should have a chance, that nobody should be without basic
services, that sort of thing.

Catja

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by d***@gmail.com
if you think of
libertarians as a somewhat more extreme version of European liberals,
I think you get at least a rough match.

Not from where we're sitting.

Could you expand on that? What package of policy inclinations do you
associate with European liberals?

[James A. Donald]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:34:53 -0700 (PDT),

Post by n***@googlemail.com
I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us
are Brits whose view of the world differs
significantly. I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is
that dominates. Even among those who have left there
is not single political view though it is interesting
to note that the majority of them are women and
perhaps the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our
essential equality?

The orthodoxy of the latest blow up is that everyone
must use language that is vetted and approved as
endorsing women's essential equality - which vetting and
approval was not universally accepted, even by those who
agree with women's essential equality - which is just
about everyone.

When not everyone agreed with the etymological theory
underlying the latest directive, some of those who felt
strongly about this etymological issue left in a huff.

Now it is perfectly obvious that women and men are not
the same, that there are substantial differences, and in
many important areas small overlap in the distributions,
and that some of these differences make men better than
women, and some make women better than men, rendering
the content of the proposition that women are
"essentially equal" unclear, and the proposition that
they are literally equal (that is to say, similar in
mean and distribution) absurd.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[n***@googlemail.com]

Post by James A. Donald
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:34:53 -0700 (PDT),

Post by n***@googlemail.com
I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us
are Brits whose view of the world differs
significantly. I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is
that dominates. Even among those who have left there
is not single political view though it is interesting
to note that the majority of them are women and
perhaps the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our
essential equality?

The orthodoxy of the latest blow up is that everyone
must use language that is vetted and approved as
endorsing women's essential equality - which vetting and
approval was not universally accepted, even by those who
agree with women's essential equality - which is just
about everyone.
When not everyone agreed with the etymological theory
underlying the latest directive, some of those who felt
strongly about this etymological issue left in a huff.
Now it is perfectly obvious that women and men are not
the same, that there are substantial differences, and in
many important areas small overlap in the distributions,
and that some of these differences make men better than
women, and some make women better than men, rendering
the content of the proposition that women are
"essentially equal" unclear, and the proposition that
they are literally equal (that is to say, similar in
mean and distribution) absurd.

It is as reasonable as 'all men are equal' and involves trivial things
like equality before the law, equal pay for equal work and equal
freedoms. I don't think anyone believes that all men are the same - in
my observation there are significant differences both in terms of
physical performance and mental acuity. The idea that all men are
literally equal is not one that most people waste much time on, to
waste time on it in this context is something of a red herring.

I have spent quite a lot of my life in male dominated environments and
find it difficult to make the sweeping generalisations about them that
seem to be so common. I have not found that men are from mars and
women from venus or whatever it is that I'm supposed to find.
Broad statistical generalisations seem pretty meaningless at the
individual level - I am better spatially than my husband and worse at
languages. My daughter is better at maths than my sons and may be able
to leg press as much weight as her sixteen year old brother (though he
is unlikely to give her the opportunity.) I find it impossible to
generalise about the abilities behavours and physical capacities of my
female friends too. I tend to deal with people as individuals.

If you don't believe that women are 'equal' in the sense that mosst
people understand it, I am unlikely to dissuade you and feel
disinclined to try. You might want to get out more and take the
blinkers off.
Nicky

[James A. Donald]

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by James A. Donald
When not everyone agreed with the etymological
theory underlying the latest directive, some of
those who felt strongly about this etymological
issue left in a huff.

It is as reasonable as 'all men are equal' and
involves trivial things like equality before the law,
equal pay for equal work and equal freedoms.

Since no one in this newgroup disagrees with any of
that, that cannot be what the latest blow up was about.

Of course some of us suspect that very few women can do
equal lumberjacking or equal fire fighting - but that
was not the dispute that led to a bunch of people
leaving: The dispute was about the etymology of the
word "twat".

Post by n***@googlemail.com
I have spent quite a lot of my life in male dominated
environments and find it difficult to make the
sweeping generalisations about them that seem to be so
common. I have not found that men are from mars and
women from venus or whatever it is that I'm supposed
to find. Broad statistical generalisations seem pretty
meaningless at the individual level - I am better
spatially than my husband and worse at languages. My
daughter is better at maths than my sons and may be
able to leg press as much weight as her sixteen year
old brother (though he is unlikely to give her the
opportunity.) I find it impossible to generalise about
the abilities behavours and physical capacities of my
female friends too. I tend to deal with people as
individuals.

I have never seen a woman wielding an axe or machete in
a manner that did not cause me to feel pity, and it
seems that the only time they ever attempt to do this is
to shame the nearest man into doing it for them. Have
you ever seen anyone except a man trail breaking?

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Bill Swears]

Post by James A. Donald
I have never seen a woman wielding an axe or machete in
a manner that did not cause me to feel pity, and it
seems that the only time they ever attempt to do this is
to shame the nearest man into doing it for them. Have
you ever seen anyone except a man trail breaking?

I've marched and walked with women in the lead. Have you ever walked
anywhere at all where there wasn't already a trail?

Bill

[James A. Donald]

Post by Bill Swears

Post by James A. Donald
I have never seen a woman wielding an axe or machete
in a manner that did not cause me to feel pity, and
it seems that the only time they ever attempt to do
this is to shame the nearest man into doing it for
them. Have you ever seen anyone except a man trail
breaking?

Bill Swears

Post by Bill Swears
I've marched and walked with women in the lead. Have
you ever walked anywhere at all where there wasn't
already a trail?

By "trail breaking" I mean creating a trail through
trackless jungle obstructed by vines hanging from the
trees and dense understory trees with sharp edged
foliage and poisonous sap. [*] I have broken quite a
few trails. It is a classic man's job, requiring upper
body strength and a great deal of force - one of the big
tasks being to chop through a fairly thick trunk with a
single blow. Multiple chops take too long, so if the
first chop fails, you change direction and try to go
around - which means chopping something else that you
hope can be taken out in one blow. The thicker the
understory tree you can take out with one blow, the
straighter the path. The understory tree trunks are
typically very soft compared to normal wood, but
nonetheless rather thick. Taking them out is in part
skill, in part strength, and doing it over and over is
endurance.

To take out a thick understory trunk, you want a heavy
machete, but to take out creepers, you need to whip that
heavy machete around reasonably fast, which is easy the
first dozen times you do it, but gets harder after a
while. If there is more than one man in your party, you
take turns breaking the trail, and each tries to prove
himself manlier than the other by keeping it up for
longer than the other can.

(* Vegetation and animals seem to be declared endangered
in proportion to how common and obnoxious they are - if
a plant has poisonous sap, razor sharp leaves, and is so
common as to be the major obstacle to movement, then it is
"endangered".)


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Catja Pafort]

Post by James A. Donald
Of course some of us suspect that very few women can do
equal lumberjacking or equal fire fighting

Have you looked at 'men' as a group? That's a wide range of physiques,
strengths, and abilities.

And even sheer strength isn't always an indicator of how well someone
will perform in a physical job that also makes demands on their
endurance.


Catja

[James A. Donald]

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by James A. Donald
Of course some of us suspect that very few women can
do equal lumberjacking or equal fire fighting

Catja Pafort

Post by Catja Pafort
Have you looked at 'men' as a group? That's a wide
range of physiques, strengths, and abilities.

Any man so feeble in upper body strength that he
overlaps with strong women, is unlikely to become a fire
fighter.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 03 May 2009 12:09:36 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<***@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:***@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]

Post by James A. Donald
Any man so feeble in upper body strength that he
overlaps with strong women, is unlikely to become a fire
fighter.

You obviously have no idea of the upper body strength of
some women.

[Catja Pafort]

Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sun, 03 May 2009 12:09:36 +1000, "James A. Donald"
[...]

Post by James A. Donald
Any man so feeble in upper body strength that he
overlaps with strong women, is unlikely to become a fire
fighter.

You obviously have no idea of the upper body strength of
some women.

Or the weakness of some men. Or the fact that doing something once or a
couple of times, after which you can rest, is a completely different
kettle of fish from doing something for hours.

I used to work in a job that involved moderately heavy lifting (up to
15kg at any one time). Only you had to do it over four or five hours,
with lesser stuff in between, but it was a case of always moving, always
lifting _something_.

I used to work with a body builder who could easily lift not just two,
but probably if he'd tried four or five bundles at a time. That wasn't
called for. What *was* called for was doing it consistently. At the end
of a shift, he was totally wiped out - and I, overweight and much weaker
female that I was, could (and sometimes did) keep going.

I've seen it more strongly with a guy who regularly shifted very large
weights - of the sort that I admittedly cannot move at all, in a job
that involved 10kg parcels. My friend the dancer - all 5'3 of her - ran
rings around him, because strength != flexibility or endurance.

Of course I want my firemen strong enough to do their job. I also want
them to be intelligent enough to tackle the job in the best possible
manner, and sensible enough to look after themselves and not endanger
themselves and others. And I probably wnt them to be a host of other
things that I don't know about because I don't know the job inside out.
What I do know, however, is that the people who are doing the job and
whose lives depend on being able to trust the firefighter beside them
are unlikely to campaign for the inclusion of basically unsuitable
individuals, so when strength is not the decisive element in recruiting
a firefighter I must conclude that maybe the equation 'the stronger a
guy, the better a firefighter he makes' is not one that holds up.


Catja

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by Brian M. Scott
On Sun, 03 May 2009 12:09:36 +1000, "James A. Donald"
[...]

Post by James A. Donald
Any man so feeble in upper body strength that he
overlaps with strong women, is unlikely to become a fire
fighter.

You obviously have no idea of the upper body strength of
some women.

Or the weakness of some men. Or the fact that doing something once or a
couple of times, after which you can rest, is a completely different
kettle of fish from doing something for hours.
I used to work in a job that involved moderately heavy lifting (up to
15kg at any one time).

Stereotypical women's work.

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

Post by Catja Pafort
strength != flexibility or endurance.

Right, and that was discussed at length in the path clearing example.

Are you actually claiming that all the distributions are close to
coinciding? If you aren't claiming that, then it seems you're just
inventing stuff to disagree about by misconstruing the claim you're
responding to.

[James A. Donald]

Caja Pafort

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Catja Pafort
I used to work in a job that involved moderately
heavy lifting (up to 15kg at any one time).

Stereotypical women's work.

If it was up to a hundred kilos, then it would be
stereotypical men's work.

Indeed, to make firefighting unisex, they had to abandon
the requirement that firefighters should carry
unconscious people to safety - political correctness
taking precedence over human lives, as it so regularly
does.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[thang ornithorhynchus]

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by James A. Donald
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:34:53 -0700 (PDT),

Post by n***@googlemail.com
I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us
are Brits whose view of the world differs
significantly. I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is
that dominates. Even among those who have left there
is not single political view though it is interesting
to note that the majority of them are women and
perhaps the orthodoxy you dislike is a belief in our
essential equality?

The orthodoxy of the latest blow up is that everyone
must use language that is vetted and approved as
endorsing women's essential equality - which vetting and
approval was not universally accepted, even by those who
agree with women's essential equality - which is just
about everyone.
When not everyone agreed with the etymological theory
underlying the latest directive, some of those who felt
strongly about this etymological issue left in a huff.
Now it is perfectly obvious that women and men are not
the same, that there are substantial differences, and in
many important areas small overlap in the distributions,
and that some of these differences make men better than
women, and some make women better than men, rendering
the content of the proposition that women are
"essentially equal" unclear, and the proposition that
they are literally equal (that is to say, similar in
mean and distribution) absurd.

It is as reasonable as 'all men are equal' and involves trivial things
like equality before the law, equal pay for equal work and equal
freedoms. I don't think anyone believes that all men are the same - in
my observation there are significant differences both in terms of
physical performance and mental acuity. The idea that all men are
literally equal is not one that most people waste much time on, to
waste time on it in this context is something of a red herring.
I have spent quite a lot of my life in male dominated environments and
find it difficult to make the sweeping generalisations about them that
seem to be so common. I have not found that men are from mars and
women from venus or whatever it is that I'm supposed to find.
Broad statistical generalisations seem pretty meaningless at the
individual level - I am better spatially than my husband and worse at
languages. My daughter is better at maths than my sons and may be able
to leg press as much weight as her sixteen year old brother (though he
is unlikely to give her the opportunity.) I find it impossible to
generalise about the abilities behavours and physical capacities of my
female friends too. I tend to deal with people as individuals.
If you don't believe that women are 'equal' in the sense that mosst
people understand it, I am unlikely to dissuade you and feel
disinclined to try. You might want to get out more and take the
blinkers off.
Nicky

What pretentious twaddle

thang

[David Friedman]

Post by n***@googlemail.com

Post by James A. Donald
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:34:53 -0700 (PDT),

Post by n***@googlemail.com
I don't know what you mean insofar as a number of us
are Brits whose view of the world differs
significantly. I'm not sure what 'orthodoxy' it is
that dominates.

...

Post by n***@googlemail.com
It is as reasonable as 'all men are equal' and involves trivial things
like equality before the law, equal pay for equal work and equal
freedoms.

This is from a while ago, but it occurred to me that it illustrated the
point James had been making which, while I think overstated, contains a
grain of truth. Part of the orthodoxy in question is the idea that
people have a right to "equal pay for equal work"--and, more, that the
existence of that right is a trivial thing, something any reasonable
person must agree with. Pretty clearly, it didn't even occur to the
poster that that and "equal freedoms" might be in sharp conflict.

There are (at least) two different and, I think, incompatible concepts
of rights in use, sometimes distinguished as positive rights and
negative rights. Positive rights are rights to outcomes--a right to a
decent education, a good job, adequate health care, housing, and the
like. Negative rights are right not to have things done to one--a right
not to be killed, not to be robbed, not to be enslaved, not to be
punished for what one says or writes, and the like. The reference in the
Declaration of Independence to the "right to life" nicely illustrates
the distinction, since it can mean either the right not to be killed, or
the right to have whatever is required to keep one alive, such as food
or medical care. I'm pretty sure the authors intended the former, but I
can easily see a modern reading in the latter.

In the view of some of us, positive rights are incompatible with
negative rights. If you have a right to a job, someone else must have
the enforceable obligation to employ you. If you have the right to be
fed, someone else must have the enforceable obligation to produce food
and provide it to you. Support for positive rights implies a rejection
of the sort of free society where relations between individuals are
voluntary--where you are my employer, employee, customer, partner,
tenant, landlord, friend, spouse, ... only if both of us choose for it
to happen, with each party having an absolute veto. The alternative is a
society where I am entitled to make such choices only if I do so on
grounds other people approve of. Hence, ultimately, support for positive
rights is support for slavery, even if imagined as a benevolent and
egalitarian version in which everyone is everyone else's slave to the
extent needed to provide everyone with what everyone is, by being a
human being, entitled to.

To put it differently, it's been argued that what happened to the
western legal system over a period of centuries was the gradual shift
from status to contract, from "I'm entitled to this because of who I am"
to "I'm entitled to this from you because you agreed to it." From my
standpoint, the acceptance of positive rights is a reactionary change,
back to status.

My point in this post isn't to argue that my view of the matter is
right, although of course I think it is. It is to suggest that part of
what some of see as orthodoxy in the composition list--more I think in
the past than in the present--is in part the view that of course
positive rights exist and are a good thing, along with an almost total
blindness to the existence of reasons to doubt it. I expect there are
other elements as well, such as taking it for granted that the Great
Depression represented the failure of capitalism due to its inherent
problems, rather than a consequence of incompetent government regulation
of the banking system and perverse government responses to the results
thereof, but the one example I think makes the point.

[s***@gmail.com]

I for one am sick of this orthodoxy. You can't say anything critical
of them. They shout you down if you disagree and they can't put their
point across without bringing out conspiracy theories.

Damn libertarians :P

Anwyay, perhaps the problem Jim is that you want to treat women as one
class and say women can't do this or that instead of "people who are
unable to life ### pounds" don't mkae good firefighters. You are
automatically assuming that all women can't match this criteria and
thus barring them/dissuading them from even trying.

Men and women do have physical and slight nerological differences.
However to say they are radically different is suspect and to treat
women as an easily defined class that all have the same atributes is
absurd. Your "prove who's more of a man" and "feel pity" comments are
further indication that you think of men and women in these idealized
terms and not as simply individuals who happen to share certain traits.

[James A. Donald]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Anwyay, perhaps the problem Jim is that you want to
treat women as one class and say women can't do this
or that instead of "people who are unable to life ###
pounds" don't mkae good firefighters.

That was the rule we used to have: A firefighter had to
be able to lift an unconscious large sized man over his
shoulder and carry him to safety over irregular terrain.
Because very few women, probably no women whatsoever,
could pass this qualifying test or perform this training
exercise, that test and training exercise was abandoned.

When a man lifts another man in fireman's lift, this is
routine and unimpressive. Most reasonably fit men can do
it without pushing themselves too hard, and he is shown
walking around carrying the man, pretty casually,
usually shown walking over irregular terrain, the
classic fireman test. When a muscle woman lifts another
*woman* in a fireman's lift, (lifts using upper body
strength) this treated as a remarkable feat, and the
musclewoman is not shown as walking around, but merely
holding the other woman up, while standing on a gym
floor, or walking very slowly and carefully in very very
tiny steps on the perfectly flat gym floor. Further, it
is invariably obvious that the other *woman*, the
*woman* she is carrying, is helping, rather than
simulating unconsciousness.

I googled for images and videos of a woman carrying a
man. I found no examples. I found examples of a woman
lifting a man, which examples usually had the man
wrapping his legs around her waist to put his weight on
her *lower* body - could not find any examples of woman
carrying a man using upper body strength. Always the
woman being carried by a woman was actively assisting,
whereas in depictions of man carrying someone, the
person being carried was relaxing, or simulating
unconsciousness, or simulating non cooperation.

Similarly, courses on computer science have removed or
de-emphasized the stuff that women have difficulty with.
It also appears to me, though I do not have concrete
proof, that different graduation standards are applied
for women than men. As I remarked earlier, every single
male computer science graduate that I have encountered
can parse a boolean expression, indicating that males
cannot pass unless they can parse. This is not the case
for female computer science graduates, which is evidence
of different graduating standards for women than for
men.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Men and women do have physical and slight nerological
differences. However to say they are radically
different is suspect

One radical difference becomes obvious when women
attempt to wield an axe or machete.

There many other equally dramatic differences that are
not so readily discernable.

Even though there is always some overlap in these
dramatically different qualities, the people in the
overlap are men or women with some serious defect that
would ordinarily render them entirely ineligible for a
task where this quality is important. A man who cannot
do a fireman's lift has something badly wrong with him.
A woman who can do a fireman's lift - well I cannot find
depictions of a woman doing a fireman's lift that meets
the full requirements: large man being carried, that
man relaxed or simulating unconsciousness, and carrying
the unconscious man a reasonable distance over irregular
terrain

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by James A. Donald
Similarly, courses on computer science have removed or
de-emphasized the stuff that women have difficulty with.
It also appears to me, though I do not have concrete
proof, that different graduation standards are applied
for women than men.  As I remarked earlier, every single
male computer science graduate that I have encountered
can parse a boolean expression, indicating that males
cannot pass unless they can parse. This is not the case
for female computer science graduates, which is evidence
of different graduating standards for women than for
men.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. I see you've found a new way
to say "affirmative action hire". These vague assertions mean nothing
without hard data.

Post by James A. Donald
One radical difference becomes obvious when women
attempt to wield an axe or machete.

There are so many jokes I could make about your obsession with upper
body strength. The fact that women generally have noticeably less
upper body strength is irrelevant to how we should treat women or how
laws concerning women should work. Jobs should have physical
requirements and not gender requirements. So that we judge applicants
on individual merit instead of based on what gender they belong.

Post by James A. Donald
There many other equally dramatic differences that are
not so readily discernable.

Or describable apparently.

Post by James A. Donald
Even though there is always some overlap in these
dramatically different qualities, the people in the
overlap are men or women with some serious defect that
would ordinarily render them entirely ineligible for a
task where this quality is important.

There is a serious difference between deficency and defect. A non-
muscular man does not have a defect, he has a defeciency.

Post by James A. Donald
A woman who can do a fireman's lift - well I cannot find
depictions of a woman doing a fireman's lift that meets
the full requirements: large man being carried, that
man relaxed or simulating unconsciousness, and carrying
the unconscious man a reasonable distance over irregular
terrain

You seem to obsessing with the fireman scenario. It's the worst
possible scenario for justifying treating genders seperatly. A gender
neutral fireman's training would weed out women incapable of lifting
the neccesary amount. If it is, as you claim, 99% then so be it. It's
the process that matters.

Something interesting about the geist of this place, your attitude
strikes me as hostile toward women in the workplace. Unintentional
perhaps but it would appear I'm not alone in percieving this. Maybe
your tone is something you should work on.

[James A. Donald]

Post by s***@gmail.com
There are so many jokes I could make about your obsession with upper
body strength. The fact that women generally have noticeably less
upper body strength is irrelevant to how we should treat women or how
laws concerning women should work.

If you concede one large employment relevant difference, then you
cannot rule out other large employment relevant differences, in which
case differences in men's and women's employment cannot be attributed
to discrimination in the absence of evidence on actual performance.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Jobs should have physical
requirements and not gender requirements.

There is no legislation or regulations prohibiting women from doing
certain jobs - there is however legislation and regulation requiring
women to be given jobs on the basis of gender, rather than ability.

Post by s***@gmail.com
So that we judge applicants
on individual merit instead of based on what gender they belong.

But if an employer judges applicants on the basis of individual merit,
the government will punish him for having insufficient women and
protected minorities.

Post by s***@gmail.com
You seem to obsessing with the fireman scenario. It's the worst
possible scenario for justifying treating genders seperatly. A gender
neutral fireman's training would weed out women incapable of lifting
the neccesary amount. If it is, as you claim, 99% then so be it. It's
the process that matters.

Your business will be shut down if 99% of woman are weeded out.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[David Friedman]

Post by James A. Donald

Post by s***@gmail.com
There are so many jokes I could make about your obsession with upper
body strength. The fact that women generally have noticeably less
upper body strength is irrelevant to how we should treat women or how
laws concerning women should work.

If you concede one large employment relevant difference, then you
cannot rule out other large employment relevant differences, in which
case differences in men's and women's employment cannot be attributed
to discrimination in the absence of evidence on actual performance.

If I interpret him correctly, the poster you are arguing isn't making
that claim. He is making the rather different claim--that some people in
fact discriminate on the grounds of gender, when they ought to be
discriminating in terms of ability to perform the task--which might or
might not result in differences in employment by gender.

[James A. Donald]

--

Post by David Friedman

Post by James A. Donald

Post by s***@gmail.com
The fact that women generally have noticeably less
upper body strength is irrelevant to how we should
treat women or how laws concerning women should
work.

If you concede one large employment relevant
difference, then you cannot rule out other large
employment relevant differences, in which case
differences in men's and women's employment cannot
be attributed to discrimination in the absence of
evidence on actual performance.

David Friedman

Post by David Friedman
If I interpret him correctly, the poster you are
arguing isn't making that claim. He is making the
rather different claim--that some people in fact
discriminate on the grounds of gender, when they ought
to be discriminating in terms of ability to perform
the task--which might or might not result in
differences in employment by gender.

But no one ever produces evidence of such discrimination
- instead, producing evidence of inequality of outcomes.
Thus the claim that such discrimination exists is mere
empty rhetoric, not intended to be taken seriously as a
description of what actually happens in the world.

It is a demand that we should respond emotionally as if
it were true, not a claim about observable reality, but
rather a demand about the moral attitude we should take
- that we should feel as if it were true, regardless of
actual events.

Similarly with many of the articles on global warming:
Thus, for example
<http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/05/satellites-show-arctic-literally-on-thin-ice>
The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the
National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the
decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is
continuing.
Does not refer to actual physical sea ice cover, but
rather to the spirit of Gaia in the ice, and contrasting
such reports to actual satellite images entirely misses
the point.

These people are not lying, any more than you are lying
when someone says "how are you" and you reply "fine".
There is no expected connection between such discourse
and reality. You are supposed to say "fine" on your
deathbed, and arctic ice will be reported to be melting
even if glaciers are crushing Chicago.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
David Friedman

Post by David Friedman
If I interpret him correctly, the poster you are
arguing isn't making that claim. He is making the
rather different claim--that some people in fact
discriminate on the grounds of gender, when they ought
to be discriminating in terms of ability to perform
the task--which might or might not result in
differences in employment by gender.

But no one ever produces evidence of such discrimination
- instead, producing evidence of inequality of outcomes.

It does tend to be a bit hard to provide direct objective evidence
about what goes on inside people's heads when they make decisions,
rather than merely on the outcomes of said decisions.

Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study":
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.
They found that "Both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a
male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical
record. Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had
done adequate teaching, research, and service experience compared to
the female job applicant with an identical record."

A related study was "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact Of 'Blind'
Auditions On Female Musicians" published in 2000 by Goldin and Rouse
in _American Economic Review_ vol. 90. While this was strictly
speaking an "outcome" study, they did not look at the outcome by
itself but the effect of a simple change -- that of conducting
auditions with a screen behind the candidate and the jury, so that the
candidate's identity is concealed -- and found "that the screen
increases by 50% the probability a woman will be advanced out of
certain preliminary rounds."

Post by Erol K. Bayburt
Thus, for example
<http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/05/satellites-show-arctic-literally-on-thin-ice>
The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the
National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the
decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is
continuing.
Does not refer to actual physical sea ice cover, but
rather to the spirit of Gaia in the ice, and contrasting
such reports to actual satellite images entirely misses
the point.

So, browsing a few links away from the article, I supposed e.g. the
satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html> are
also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in the ice"?

[David Friedman]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one.

The problem with that sort of experiment is that, the more you restrict
the amount of data someone has in making the decision, the more it makes
sense to engage in statistical discrimination.

If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case. Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

You could call that prejudice, but only if you are going to use that
label for all decisions that use general information about the world to
fill in the gaps in specific information about a current choice.

The argument that was being offered by the poster James was arguing with
was that you ought to judge each firefighter by whether he or she could
do the job, not by gender. Hard to do if you aren't allowed to actually
see whether the applicant can pick up someone and carry him, that being
part of the job.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by David Friedman
If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case. Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

Except Ilmari specifically says the studies she's referrrencing
present resumes with the same abilities and different names. Therefore
you are not basing your decision on "general facts". An even better
study would be to present two resumes in which the female had one or
two superior points that one would believe would get her hired of the
two applicants.

Post by David Friedman
The argument that was being offered by the poster James was arguing with
was that you ought to judge each firefighter by whether he or she could
do the job, not by gender. Hard to do if you aren't allowed to actually
see whether the applicant can pick up someone and carry him, that being
part of the job.

I have no problem with testing women the same and agree that those who
argue for a double standard are going about feminism and/or gender
equality the wrong way. However James was not making a specific pin
point arguement. He is all over the place. He;s arguing for gender
based decisions using mostly anecdotal evidence (fording a path,
boolean script, etc.). He even specifically said that "if there is one
gender difference why couldn't there be others".

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by s***@gmail.com
I have no problem with testing women the same and agree that those who
argue for a double standard are going about feminism and/or gender
equality the wrong way. However James was not making a specific pin
point arguement. He is all over the place. He;s arguing for gender
based decisions using mostly anecdotal evidence (fording a path,
boolean script, etc.).

I don't think so--as I suggested to him, I think you are arguing past
each other. He's arguing, as you are, for decisions based on
qualifications. He believes that the result would be few or no women
firefighters, and that the requirements have been deliberately weakened
to prevent that result.

I don't think he has said anything implying support for gender based
decisions, any more than you have said anything implying that unequal
results are themselves evidence of prejudice.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 9 May 2009 10:37:37 -0700 (PDT),
<***@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:2ea4574a-65a6-4707-b4e9-***@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]

Post by s***@gmail.com
Except Ilmari specifically says the studies she's referrrencing

He. Related to the name of Ilmarinen, the wonderful smith
of Finnish mythology. (Who may originally have been a god
of sky and weather, since the name seems to be from <ilma>
'air, weather'.)

[...]

Brian

[Bill Swears]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by David Friedman
If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case. Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

Except Ilmari specifically says the studies she's referrrencing
present resumes with the same abilities and different names. Therefore
you are not basing your decision on "general facts". An even better
study would be to present two resumes in which the female had one or
two superior points that one would believe would get her hired of the
two applicants.

Post by David Friedman
The argument that was being offered by the poster James was arguing with
was that you ought to judge each firefighter by whether he or she could
do the job, not by gender. Hard to do if you aren't allowed to actually
see whether the applicant can pick up someone and carry him, that being
part of the job.

Yabbut, the tests demonstrated that sexist hiring practice is still in
place. Therefore, efforts to ensure some form of blind selection should
be taken, where applicable. In the case of Firefighters, it seems to me
that you could successfully argue that physical strength
discrimination is mandatory. The question that James ignored wasn't
whether women could be found who could lift 200 lbs men, and be lifted
in return, but whether limiting the field in that way was rational
discrimination.

If firefighters have been required to lift and carry two hundred lbs men
over obstacles during basic training, but never again, then firehouses
are full of people who used to be able to do that thing, but cannot do
it now. If 99% of firemen never face deadlifting someone that large
alone, then the training criteria is unnecessary in the first place, and
selection based on a standard that will actually be faced in the field
is more appropriate.

James' effort to aver that deadlift standards have changed for political
correctness ignores whether they should have changed, and whether the
change is universal, or has only been made in certain precincts, and
whether that decision was based on arbitrary gender norming for
political correctness, or for other reasons, such as demographic shifts
that meant the precincts weren't getting the volunteers they needed to
fill their shifts. He wants us to view the deadlift test as critical,
and universally ignored or modified to allow women to do something they
aren't capable of, but his arguments are at best incomplete. They're
certainly inflammatory.

Bill

[David Friedman]

Post by Bill Swears

Post by David Friedman
The argument that was being offered by the poster James was arguing with
was that you ought to judge each firefighter by whether he or she could
do the job, not by gender. Hard to do if you aren't allowed to actually
see whether the applicant can pick up someone and carry him, that being
part of the job.

Yabbut, the tests demonstrated that sexist hiring practice is still in
place. Therefore, efforts to ensure some form of blind selection should
be taken, where applicable.

Note that "blind" selection, if it isn't gender blind, increases the
incentive to choose by gender, since it means you can't distinguish the
occasional woman with adequate upper body strength from the
(hypothetically much larger) number without it. And if it is blind
including gender blind, that makes it even harder to actually select the
people suited to the job.

To reduce irrational discrimination, you may want to reduce available
information, but to reduce rational discrimination you want to increase
it.

[James A. Donald]

Post by Bill Swears
Yabbut, the tests demonstrated that sexist hiring practice is still in
place.

No, the test illustrate nothing of the kind. To test that, should
have tested whether the same resume a male name got more interviews.

Assuming the tests actually happened at all - they sound very similar
to the mortgage discrimination tests, which we know gave false and
misleading results, if they were carried out at all, which does not
seem very likely..


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Bill Swears]

Post by James A. Donald

Post by Bill Swears
Yabbut, the tests demonstrated that sexist hiring practice is still in
place.

No, the test illustrate nothing of the kind. To test that, should
have tested whether the same resume a male name got more interviews.
Assuming the tests actually happened at all - they sound very similar
to the mortgage discrimination tests, which we know gave false and
misleading results, if they were carried out at all, which does not
seem very likely..

James, when you point out that statistics that disagree with your world
view must therefore be false, you aren't really saying anything about
anybody other then yourself...

Bill

[James A. Donald]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 07:46:14 -0800, Bill Swears

Post by Bill Swears
James, when you point out that statistics that
disagree with your world view must therefore be false,
you aren't really saying anything about anybody other
then yourself...

But these are not actual statistics - actual statistics
would be
"we sent out a bunch of resumes, and resumes
with male names got more interview requests for
the same resume as resumes with female names"

Instead, these results are that they interviewed the
people who looked at the resumes, and their
interpretation of their words was that those who
recieved the resumes did not think much of the
candidates with female names on the resumes."

Which has the superficial appearance of being a
statistic, but is not in fact a statistic. My
interpretation of the words of those who received the
resumes would be quite different. Only actual behavior
counts, since words are slippery things.

Similarly for the ice data. Actual statistics would be
a graph showing total sea ice area over time.

Since actual statistics are missing, and since you are
entirely unworried by the complete and total absence of
actual statistics, you don't really believe the claims
are true in the sense of being claims about the world -
you only believe the claims are true in a moral and
religious sense.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by James A. Donald
On Sun, 10 May 2009 07:46:14 -0800, Bill Swears

Post by Bill Swears
James, when you point out that statistics that
disagree with your world view must therefore be false,
you aren't really saying anything about anybody other
then yourself...

But these are not actual statistics - actual statistics
would be
"we sent out a bunch of resumes, and resumes
with male names got more interview requests for
the same resume as resumes with female names"
Instead, these results are that they interviewed the
people who looked at the resumes, and their
interpretation of their words was that those who
recieved the resumes did not think much of the
candidates with female names on the resumes."

They sent out resumes with a questionnaire asking "would you hire this
person?" Admittedly, that's not *quite* the same thing as sending out
resumes and asking "I'd like to work for you, will you interview me?",
but it's about the closest one can get in a blind experiment, at least
in academia where anyone trying to submit an actual resume under a
fake name would be easily and immediately caught.

In any case, if you can think of any mechanism that would make people
*more* likely to discriminate on the basis of sex *because* they know
that they're responding to a survey rather than a real application,
I'd very much like to hear it.

At this point, you do sound very much as if you're grasping at straws.
Had the researchers in fact done exactly as you suggest above, I
suppose you'd then be claiming the results to be meaningless due to
only counting interview requests and not actual job offers?

[James A. Donald]

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
But these are not actual statistics - actual statistics
would be
"we sent out a bunch of resumes, and resumes
with male names got more interview requests for
the same resume as resumes with female names"
Instead, these results are that they interviewed the
people who looked at the resumes, and their
interpretation of their words was that those who
recieved the resumes did not think much of the
candidates with female names on the resumes."

Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
They sent out resumes with a questionnaire asking "would you hire this
person?"

Perhaps. If they literally did that, would look mighty odd to the
recipient.

Whatever they did, they deviated from normal hiring processes, and any
such deviation creates the opportunity to manipulate the results,
intentionally, unintentionally, maliciously, or unconsciously.

David argues that being asked to make a decision on the basis of
inadequate information caused those surveyed to rationally fall back
on stereotyping. That is possible but grants excessive good intent to
the researchers. Deviation from direct measurement of the variable in
question is always evidence of dishonest intent.

Since they did not examine the normal hiring procedures you have to
conclude that had they *followed* normal hiring procedures - just sent
out the resumes and looked for interview requests - the results would
be that the gender of the name on the resume made no significant
difference.

Similarly you have to conclude that the announcement that arctic ice
is on declining trend without any information about the latest state
of arctic ice indicates that arctic ice is *not* on trend, and that
all the references to "arctic" imply that antarctic ice is on the
opposite trend.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Admittedly, that's not *quite* the same thing as sending out
resumes and asking "I'd like to work for you, will you interview me?",
but it's about the closest one can get in a blind experiment,

On the contrary, the closest one can get in a blind experiment is
interview requests.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

On Sat, 9 May 2009 10:37:37 -0700 (PDT),

Post by s***@gmail.com
Except Ilmari specifically says the studies she's
referrrencing present resumes with the same abilities
and different names.

But you cannot tell much about someone from a resume.

So if you asked whether they would hire someone from a
resume, that is an artificial and unreasonable question.
The relevant question is "would you interview this
person"

If all you know is what is on a resume, you don't know
anything, so the obvious and sensible thing to do is to
go by stereotype.

The situation is set up to force the desired result -
stupendously and absurdly high levels of discrimination.

But I have a simpler explanation: That they simply made
up these improbably extreme numbers, which is what they
did with discrimination in mortgages.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one.

The problem with that sort of experiment is that, the more you restrict
the amount of data someone has in making the decision, the more it makes
sense to engage in statistical discrimination.

Yes. As I said, it's hard to objectively test what goes on inside a
person's head without constructing somewhat artificial scenarios.

That said, the orchestra study I mentioned is interesting in that they
looked at actual hiring decisions made with or without knowledge (at
least in the early stages of the process) of the applicant's sex, in a
field where an applicant's job performance can in fact be objectively
evaluated to a large extent without actually seeing the applicant.

Of course, neither of these studies directly say anything about
sex-based discrimination among firefighters, only among academics and
orchestra musicians. But they do seem to provide examples of positive
evidence, at least as far as such can be provided without telepathy,
of employee selection being made on the basis of sex regardless of (or
even in contradiction of) actual demonstrated ability to do the job.

Which is what James claimed that "no one ever produces", so I figured
I ought to take a few minutes to Google some to produce for him.

Post by David Friedman
The argument that was being offered by the poster James was arguing with
was that you ought to judge each firefighter by whether he or she could
do the job, not by gender. Hard to do if you aren't allowed to actually
see whether the applicant can pick up someone and carry him, that being
part of the job.

I suppose it would technically be possible to test prospective
firefighters' physical abilities in a blinded way, as with the
musicians: while _someone_ must surely see the applicant performing
the test tasks, that someone need not be any of the people doing the
actual selection. It would be enough for someone to certify that,
yes, applicant X can pick up and carry a W-kg man for N meters in T
seconds, and whatever other physical requirements there should be.

Of course, that still leaves open the question of what the required
minimum carried weight and distance should be: if it's set to a level
that excludes a significant fraction of otherwise qualified applicants
(whether men or women), it would generally be nice to know that it was
determined based on actual statistics of situations encountered on the
job (rather than merely on a preconceived notion such as that "we only
want the biggest, strongest and manliest firemen"). Which, of course,
it might well be; I only have the foggiest notion of what working as a
firefighter actually involves, so I'm not contesting that point.

[James A. Donald]

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by David Friedman
The problem with that sort of experiment is that,
the more you restrict the amount of data someone has
in making the decision, the more it makes sense to
engage in statistical discrimination.

Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Yes. As I said, it's hard to objectively test what
goes on inside a person's head without constructing
somewhat artificial scenarios.

On the contrary: There is a perfectly straightforward
measurement easily performed in an entirely realistic
scenario: Send out duplicate resumes, differing in the
gender of the name. See how many male names/female
names get interview requests.

If the experiment differs from that, it is cooked.

Similarly, if data on supposedly shrinking ice fails to
depict total ice area over time to the present, it is
cooked.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Catja Pafort]

Post by David Friedman
Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

No it's not. It's entirely rational to find out whether a candidate can
do what you're asking them to do; it somewhat rational to predict which
of them is more likely to be suitable, but it is *not* rational to hire
a statistic instead of a person standing in front of you. If, say, 80%
of men and 20% of women can do the job, then hiring the man by default
still gives you a one in five chance to have hired a person who can't do
the job and a on in twenty-five chance of not hiring someone who _can_
do the job in favour of someone who _can't_.

That does not sound rational to me at all.


Catja

[David Friedman]

In article

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by David Friedman
Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

No it's not. It's entirely rational to find out whether a candidate can
do what you're asking them to do; it somewhat rational to predict which
of them is more likely to be suitable, but it is *not* rational to hire
a statistic instead of a person standing in front of you.

As you can easily see by reading what I wrote, I specified that all you
know about them is their gender. The part you snipped included:

"If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case." and, later, "Hard
to do if you aren't allowed to actually see whether the applicant can
pick up someone and carry him, that being part of the job."

I suppose it's possible to read that and not realize that I was
specifying a case where no other information was available, but it must
have taken some effort.

Post by Catja Pafort
If, say, 80%
of men and 20% of women can do the job, then hiring the man by default
still gives you a one in five chance to have hired a person who can't do
the job and a on in twenty-five chance of not hiring someone who _can_
do the job in favour of someone who _can't_.
That does not sound rational to me at all.

Which are better odds than any alternative strategy, given the
assumption that no additional information was available.

[Suzanne Blom]

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by David Friedman
Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

No it's not. It's entirely rational to find out whether a candidate can
do what you're asking them to do; it somewhat rational to predict which
of them is more likely to be suitable, but it is *not* rational to hire
a statistic instead of a person standing in front of you.

As you can easily see by reading what I wrote, I specified that all you
"If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case." and, later, "Hard
to do if you aren't allowed to actually see whether the applicant can
pick up someone and carry him, that being part of the job."
I suppose it's possible to read that and not realize that I was
specifying a case where no other information was available, but it must
have taken some effort.

Post by Catja Pafort
If, say, 80%
of men and 20% of women can do the job, then hiring the man by default
still gives you a one in five chance to have hired a person who can't do
the job and a on in twenty-five chance of not hiring someone who _can_
do the job in favour of someone who _can't_.
That does not sound rational to me at all.

Which are better odds than any alternative strategy, given the
assumption that no additional information was available.

Spherical Cows. If you can't get more information than that, you shouldn't
be in the business of hiring people.

[David Friedman]

Post by Suzanne Blom

Post by David Friedman
In article

Post by Catja Pafort

Post by David Friedman
Suppose that some
women and some men have the physical abilities necessary to be
firefighters--but a much larger fraction of men than of women. You have
two applicants and all you know about them is their gender. It's
entirely rational to choose the man.

No it's not. It's entirely rational to find out whether a candidate can
do what you're asking them to do; it somewhat rational to predict which
of them is more likely to be suitable, but it is *not* rational to hire
a statistic instead of a person standing in front of you.

As you can easily see by reading what I wrote, I specified that all you
"If that isn't obvious, consider the limiting case." and, later, "Hard
to do if you aren't allowed to actually see whether the applicant can
pick up someone and carry him, that being part of the job."
I suppose it's possible to read that and not realize that I was
specifying a case where no other information was available, but it must
have taken some effort.

Post by Catja Pafort
If, say, 80%
of men and 20% of women can do the job, then hiring the man by default
still gives you a one in five chance to have hired a person who can't do
the job and a on in twenty-five chance of not hiring someone who _can_
do the job in favour of someone who _can't_.
That does not sound rational to me at all.

Which are better odds than any alternative strategy, given the
assumption that no additional information was available.

Spherical Cows. If you can't get more information than that, you shouldn't
be in the business of hiring people.

If you actually look at the thread, you might notice that I described it
as a limiting case, which I was using to make a more general point about
the problem of identifying irrational discrimination.

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Suzanne Blom
Spherical Cows. If you can't get more information than that, you shouldn't
be in the business of hiring people.

If you actually look at the thread, you might notice that I described it
as a limiting case, which I was using to make a more general point about
the problem of identifying irrational discrimination.

Yes, David was making a point that I forgot to account for a
particular statistical effect (the limited availability of information
about the applicant's ability during the hiring process) and
illustrated its existence with a contrived theoretical scenario where
said effect is maximized. The point was taken, and I don't believe
anything more should be read into his scenario.

[James A. Donald]

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
But no one ever produces evidence of such discrimination
- instead, producing evidence of inequality of outcomes.

Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
It does tend to be a bit hard to provide direct objective evidence
about what goes on inside people's heads when they make decisions,
rather than merely on the outcomes of said decisions.

If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

We observe the reverse, the most recent disaster along
these lines being loss of some trillions in dud
mortgages, the greater part of these dud mortgages being
CRA loans to protected minority groups.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind
application" studies in which identical resumés were
submitted to prospective employers with just the
applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's
Googling) was published in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders
and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as "The Impact of
Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchto
olkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.

This does indeed constitute a claim of evidence, but the
claim alleges to detect quite improbable levels of
discrimination.

We heard the same story about loans to members of
protected minorities, and observe how that one turned
out. The financial crisis is predominantly a CRA
crisis.

The reported level of discrimination is far too extreme
to be at all believable. It contradicts our everyday
experience. It is similar to those surveys that
purportedly demonstrate that 73% of women have been
raped.

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
Similarly with many of the articles on global
warming: Thus, for example
<http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/05/satellites-show-arct
ic-literally-on-thin-ice>
The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and
the National Snow and Ice Data Center show
that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea
ice cover is continuing.
Does not refer to actual physical sea ice cover, but
rather to the spirit of Gaia in the ice, and
contrasting such reports to actual satellite images
entirely misses the point.

Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
So, browsing a few links away from the article, I
supposed e.g. the satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_stat
us09.html> are also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in
the ice"?

Yes, of course. The article says:

The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the
National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the
decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is
continuing

Had the writer said "recent massive increases of sea ice
over the past few years are not yet sufficient to cast
doubt that there is a long term trend of ice
diminishing." then he might well have been referring to
actual physical ice.
No one is expected to imagine that this refers to
actual physical ice, any more than the
transubstantiation of the eucharist corresponds to an
alleged observation of biscuit turning into steak.
Rather is an assertion of moral superiority, a
denunciation of demons:

Here are some graphs showing the actual sea ice trend:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/03/global-sea-ice-nears-record-high/

There has indeed been a decades long trend of shrinking
ice cover, but that trend is definitely not
*continuing*, at least not for the past few years.

Now one could plausibly claim that recent sea ice
levels, which are close to record highs, are just a blip
in a longer term trend, but a blip is not a
continuation. Recent events cast doubt on the trend.
The claim is that recent events confirm the trend, which
claim is clearly a religious claim, not a claim about
physical ice.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[David Friedman]

Post by James A. Donald
If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

My sister when to Bolt, the Berkeley law school, I think sometime in the
sixties. I remember her telling me that one year, out of the top two
students in each of the three classes, five of the six were women.

Women at the time were about ten percent of the total class.

[James A. Donald]

Post by David Friedman

Post by James A. Donald
If people discriminated irrationally, we would
observe that among the those selected from the
allegedly discriminated against group, those
selected would be *better* than those of the
allegedly oppressing group.

My sister when to Bolt, the Berkeley law school, I
think sometime in the sixties. I remember her telling
me that one year, out of the top two students in each
of the three classes, five of the six were women.

Possibly that was true in the sixties. But it is not
true now. Women graduate in Computer Science who would
not be graduated if they were male.

Or possibly the instructors were "encouraging" the women
- observe the story of Madam Curie, who received a Noble
for work that was entirely unremarkable when men did it.
No one remembers who discovered the other hundred odd
elements, and those of them that got Nobels, did not get
them merely for discovering elements. Discovering
Radium was the equivalent of discovering Radon. Who
discovered Radon?

When they gave a Noble prize to Marie Curie for being
female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving
potential Noble prize winners - in particular her
father, who probably did not object. But handing out
phony Nobles on the basis of sex, race, and nationality
necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of
race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis
of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these
phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so
employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well
paid jobs on the basis of race and sex.

But being given well paid jobs on the basis of race and
sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class
lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a
middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex.

Which has led to our present financial crisis. It all
began with Marie Curie, each lie leading to a bigger
lie.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
It does tend to be a bit hard to provide direct objective evidence
about what goes on inside people's heads when they make decisions,
rather than merely on the outcomes of said decisions.

If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

Not necessarily, since it would be quite possible for a group to be
_both_ worse at a given job _and_ also irrationally discriminated
against. What you'd really need to do is compare the ability
distributions between the hired employees and the candidate pool (or
the general population), and test whether they're compatible with the
assumption that hiring is only done on the basis of ability.

Also, all this is complicated by applicant self-selection, which means
that either choice of the reference population requires making some
assumptions: either that anyone who could get the job would take it
(if one compares with the general population) or that anyone who'd
want the job and had sufficient ability would apply, even if they knew
they'd be irrationally discriminated against (if one compares against
the applicants).

The population one should, ideally, compare the hired people against
would be those who would apply for the job if there was no irrational
discrimination. This is a difficult population to sample, and indeed
may not even exist in the presence of discrimination: if someone
believes they'll never be hired for the job they'd like no matter how
much they practice for it, why would they bother practicing in the
first place? Thus, (belief in) discrimination can in fact alter the
skill distribution even in the general population.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
We observe the reverse, the most recent disaster along
these lines being loss of some trillions in dud
mortgages, the greater part of these dud mortgages being
CRA loans to protected minority groups.

What your observation implies (if true, and with the caveats given
above) is that CRA loans are discriminatory. Which should not come as
a surprise, given that the Community Reinvestment Act appears to have
been designed as a "positive discrimination" measure.

(However, my ability to intelligently discuss this particular example
is somewhat limited by the fact that I don't live in the U.S. and had
to Google for "CRA loan" just to find out what the acronym means.)

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchto
olkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.

This does indeed constitute a claim of evidence, but the
claim alleges to detect quite improbable levels of
discrimination.

This is a surprising reaction, given that I don't see how one _can_
derive quantitative estimates of the level of discrimination from
their study without significant additional assumptions. They have one
data point, which provides fairly convincing qualitative evidence that
sex-based discrimination (conscious or subconscious) does occur in the
sector of academia they studied, but you'd need several data points to
provide a quantitative measure.

For all we know, it *might* be that the discrimination is almost
nonexistent, but their test resumé just happened to fall on the
boundary of hireability where it made a difference. I'm not saying
such a coincidence is likely, but their data doesn't rule it out.

(Indeed, they actually did have a second data point, but it showed no
discrimination -- a fact which they suggest might be due to their
second resumé having been so good as to make it an obvious hire
regardless of sex.)

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
So, browsing a few links away from the article, I
supposed e.g. the satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_stat
us09.html> are also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in
the ice"?

The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the
National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the
decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is
continuing
Had the writer said "recent massive increases of sea ice
over the past few years are not yet sufficient to cast
doubt that there is a long term trend of ice
diminishing." then he might well have been referring to
actual physical ice.

Same difference, surely? If the trend was downwards before, and still
points downwards after the latest data is included, surely that's
enough to say that "the trend is continuing". But yes, it's fuzzy
language, as is any discussion of trends without explicitly mentioning
how you're calculating the trend and justifying the choice.

They might as well have left it out entirely, anyway, since it's not
really the point of the press release -- what it's really about is
that they've figured out how to directly measure ice thickness (and
thereby volume). Of course, if your complaint was merely about that
one sentence, then I'm sorry for bothering you with irrelevancies.

[David Friedman]

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

Not necessarily, since it would be quite possible for a group to be
_both_ worse at a given job _and_ also irrationally discriminated
against. What you'd really need to do is compare the ability
distributions between the hired employees and the candidate pool (or
the general population), and test whether they're compatible with the
assumption that hiring is only done on the basis of ability.

I'm not sure I understand the test you are proposing. It isn't enough to
observe that a candidate who is a member of the group is less likely to
be hired than an equally able candidate who isn't. That could reflect
rational discrimination, given imperfect information about ability.

For the simplest case, suppose you have no information at all other than
group membership, that one group is on average better at the job, and
lots of members of both groups are available at the same salary. The
rational thing to do is to hire only members of the group that's better.

...

[Ilmari Karonen]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

Not necessarily, since it would be quite possible for a group to be
_both_ worse at a given job _and_ also irrationally discriminated
against. What you'd really need to do is compare the ability
distributions between the hired employees and the candidate pool (or
the general population), and test whether they're compatible with the
assumption that hiring is only done on the basis of ability.

I'm not sure I understand the test you are proposing. It isn't enough to
observe that a candidate who is a member of the group is less likely to
be hired than an equally able candidate who isn't. That could reflect
rational discrimination, given imperfect information about ability.

Yes, you're right that limited availability of information makes
testing the rationality of hiring decisions even harder, since you
have to consider rationality given the information available, rather
than merely the limit case where all relevant information is assumed
to be available.

That still doesn't validate James's proposed test -- indeed, it makes
it worse. In fact, in the limit scenario you mentioned (where the
applican't sex is the only information available during the hiring
process), the test James suggested would not provide *any* information
on the rationality of the hiring process, since the marginal ability
distributions among the hired workers, conditioned on sex, would
simply be identical to those in the applicant pool.

[James A. Donald]

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
If people discriminated irrationally, we would observe
that among the those selected from the allegedly
discriminated against group, those selected would be
*better* than those of the allegedly oppressing group.

Ilmari Karonen

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Not necessarily, since it would be quite possible for a group to be
_both_ worse at a given job _and_ also irrationally discriminated
against.

But it is not possible for those hired despite being irrationally
discriminated against to be worse at the given job - which is the
situation I observe for female engineers. Of course, you may well
suspect that my observation is a prejudgment, just as I conclude that
the interviews carried out by those who wrote the paper you cite were
prejudged.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
For all we know, it *might* be that the discrimination is almost
nonexistent, but their test resumé just happened to fall on the
boundary of hireability where it made a difference.

Except that they did not directly test whether it made any difference
at all To actually measure the difference, they needed to report the
difference in interview requests for the fictitious candidates.
Instead they interviewed the people reviewing the resumes, and
concluded that those people were extraordinarily and improbably
prejudiced - which may well reflect the biases of the researchers,
rather than the biases of those the researchers interviewed.

Post by Ilmari Karonen

Post by James A. Donald
Had the writer said "recent massive increases of sea ice
over the past few years are not yet sufficient to cast
doubt that there is a long term trend of ice
diminishing." then he might well have been referring to
actual physical ice.

Same difference, surely? If the trend was downwards before, and still
points downwards after the latest data is included

The claim was that the latest data confirms the trend. But the latest
data casts doubt on the trend. It does not disprove it, the trend is
indeed arguably still there, but it does not look nearly as convincing
as it previously did.

Total sea ice is today close to the maximum level ever seen and rising
steeply. Arctic sea ice is at its average level for the period that
it has been observed by satellites.

From the failure to provide the latest data, you surely knew that that
data, if provided, would cast doubt on the trend, just as you should
have deduced from the failure to provide information about interview
requests, resumes in a female name got the same number of interview
requests as an identical resume in a male name.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
But yes, it's fuzzy
language, as is any discussion of trends without explicitly mentioning
how you're calculating the trend and justifying the choice.

If recent data was close to trend, vague language would be justified
in a brief statement, though not in an article so long and detailed.
Since recent data deviates strikingly from the long established trend,
vague language is evasive.

Pop Psychology 101: if someone is evasive, they have cheated you or
are planning to do so.

Post by Ilmari Karonen
They might as well have left it out entirely, anyway, since it's not
really the point of the press release -- what it's really about is
that they've figured out how to directly measure ice thickness (and
thereby volume).

They estimate the amount of multiyear ice by simply taking the amount
of ice that survived the most recent summer - by which standard, the
amount of multi year ice, though close to the lowest it has been, has
nonetheless risen - in other words, the trend is *not* continuing,
though neither has it dramatically reversed.


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:01:30 +1000, James A. Donald

Post by James A. Donald
They estimate the amount of multiyear ice by simply taking the amount
of ice that survived the most recent summer - by which standard, the
amount of multi year ice, though close to the lowest it has been, has
nonetheless risen - in other words, the trend is *not* continuing,
though neither has it dramatically reversed.

Correction: They used some *other* (ill decribed) method for
estimating multi year ice, by which standard multi year ice is indeed
continuing to decline - but if we go by the amount of ice that
survived the most recent summer, which seems a more logical standard,
multi year arctic ice has stopped declining, though it has not risen
substantially.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.

[...]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
So, browsing a few links away from the article, I supposed e.g. the
satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html> are
also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in the ice"?

If these people were talking about real discrimination,
they would have measured how many resumes led to
interview requests, and if these people were talking
about real ice, they would have a graph showing total
sea ice area over time.

From the absence of this key data, you know they not
talking about real discrimination, or real ice, but
rather merely taking an attitude of moral superiority.

You do not really believe that they refer to real
discrimination, and you do not really believe they are
talking about real ice. You believe they are talking
about real discrimination and real ice in the way that
you believe that faith will get you to heaven, not in
the way you believe that flight UA311 will get you to
Australia.

Rather, they refer to the sinfulness of unequal
outcomes, and the sea ice that is receding is not mere
frozen water, but the spirit of the ice, Gaia's infusion
of spirituality into a frozen wilderness that they
contemplate from the comfort of Starbucks.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Suzanne Blom]

Post by James A. Donald

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.

[...]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
So, browsing a few links away from the article, I supposed e.g. the
satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html> are
also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in the ice"?

If these people were talking about real discrimination,
they would have measured how many resumes led to
interview requests, and if these people were talking
about real ice, they would have a graph showing total
sea ice area over time.
From the absence of this key data, you know they not
talking about real discrimination, or real ice, but
rather merely taking an attitude of moral superiority.

Given that I have seen maps of real ice (well, okay, in the map it wasn't
cold or H2O) and how it has diminished in places as diverse as Science News
and National Geographic, I'm not sure what you're on about. Perhaps you
want to be dropped in the same spot at the same time every year to learn if
you drown only in later years? Hmm, doesn't seem like a repeatable test to
me.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:52:00 -0500, Suzanne Blom

Post by Suzanne Blom

Post by James A. Donald

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impact_of_Gender.pdf>.

[...]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
So, browsing a few links away from the article, I supposed e.g. the
satellite data at
<http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html> are
also measuring "the spirit of Gaia in the ice"?

If these people were talking about real discrimination,
they would have measured how many resumes led to
interview requests, and if these people were talking
about real ice, they would have a graph showing total
sea ice area over time.
From the absence of this key data, you know they not
talking about real discrimination, or real ice, but
rather merely taking an attitude of moral superiority.

Given that I have seen maps of real ice (well, okay, in the map it wasn't
cold or H2O) and how it has diminished in places as diverse as Science News
and National Geographic, I'm not sure what you're on about. Perhaps you
want to be dropped in the same spot at the same time every year to learn if
you drown only in later years? Hmm, doesn't seem like a repeatable test to
me.

And this is bad how? <g>

Brian

[David Friedman]

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impa
ct_of_Gender.pdf>.
They found that "Both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a
male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical
record. Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had
done adequate teaching, research, and service experience compared to
the female job applicant with an identical record."

Note that there was no similar result on voting to tenure, only on
voting to hire. The study used two different resumes, representing the
same (real) person at different points in her career.

One possible explanation is that the people doing the evaluation
believed, perhaps correctly, that an otherwise identical woman was less
likely to make a lifetime career in academia than a man, since she was
more likely to end up putting time and effort into producing and rearing
children. That would explain the difference between the hiring result
and the tenure result--by the point in her career when she is up for
tenure, a woman has given much clearer evidence that she is going to
stick with it than at the beginning of her career.

[Suzanne Blom]

Post by David Friedman

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/Impa
ct_of_Gender.pdf>.
They found that "Both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a
male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical
record. Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had
done adequate teaching, research, and service experience compared to
the female job applicant with an identical record."

Note that there was no similar result on voting to tenure, only on
voting to hire. The study used two different resumes, representing the
same (real) person at different points in her career.
One possible explanation is that the people doing the evaluation
believed, perhaps correctly, that an otherwise identical woman was less
likely to make a lifetime career in academia than a man, since she was
more likely to end up putting time and effort into producing and rearing
children. That would explain the difference between the hiring result
and the tenure result--by the point in her career when she is up for
tenure, a woman has given much clearer evidence that she is going to
stick with it than at the beginning of her career.

Or may they believe that a woman is more likely to make a lifetime career of
it and therefore they are less likely to be able to get their buddies in.
Or maybe they believe most women are really Martians and should not be given
jobs because of that.

[David Friedman]

Post by Suzanne Blom

Post by David Friedman

Post by Ilmari Karonen
Nonetheless, people _have_ conducted some "blind application" studies
in which identical resumés were submitted to prospective employers
with just the applicant's name changed to a typically male or female
one. One such study (turned up by a moment's Googling) was published
in 1999 by Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke in _Sex Roles_, vol. 41 as
"The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job
<http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/I
mpa
ct_of_Gender.pdf>.
They found that "Both men and women were more likely to vote to hire a
male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical
record. Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had
done adequate teaching, research, and service experience compared to
the female job applicant with an identical record."

Note that there was no similar result on voting to tenure, only on
voting to hire. The study used two different resumes, representing the
same (real) person at different points in her career.
One possible explanation is that the people doing the evaluation
believed, perhaps correctly, that an otherwise identical woman was less
likely to make a lifetime career in academia than a man, since she was
more likely to end up putting time and effort into producing and rearing
children. That would explain the difference between the hiring result
and the tenure result--by the point in her career when she is up for
tenure, a woman has given much clearer evidence that she is going to
stick with it than at the beginning of her career.

Or may they believe that a woman is more likely to make a lifetime career of
it and therefore they are less likely to be able to get their buddies in.

That would be a stronger argument against giving tenure than against the
initial hire, which doesn't fit the results of the study.

[James A. Donald]

--
On Sun, 10 May 2009 16:44:53 -0700, David Friedman

Post by David Friedman
Note that there was no similar result on voting to
tenure, only on voting to hire. The study used two
different resumes, representing the same (real) person
at different points in her career.

But in real life, no one votes to hire on the basis of a
resume They vote to interview.

A simpler explanation is that they did NOT vote to hire,
rather the researchers asked them questions about the
resume, and INTERPRETED their answers - and the
researchers did this because the decision to interview
showed no pre judgment or bias.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by James A. Donald
If you concede one large employment relevant difference, then you
cannot rule out other large employment relevant differences, in which
case differences in men's and women's employment cannot be attributed
to discrimination in the absence of evidence on actual performance.

I'm not trying to attribute anything in the absense of performanc
evidence. That would be you. You have yet to justify your comments
that women are being held to a lower standard in education and/or that
women lack the ability or tend to lack the ability to excel at
computer science.

You are using rash generaliztions about women as a whole, seemingly
based off of anecdotes and pre-conceived notions of how genders should
act. That's pretty damn close to sexism for me.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by James A. Donald
I googled for images and videos of a woman carrying a
man.  I found no examples.

Then apparently you didn't check youtube:
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Apparently there's a whole genre of porn based around women picking up
and carrying men.

[James A. Donald]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by James A. Donald
I googled for images and videos of a woman carrying a
man.  I found no examples.

1. http://youtu.be/-Wd_lleNKio

Flat ground

Post by s***@gmail.com
2. http://youtu.be/ZBRCH7ezZSY

Supervisor is helping her, carrying a good part of the weight.

Post by s***@gmail.com
3. http://youtu.be/H0_jaZWYgEc

The man helping - his hand is pushing down on her buttocks.

Post by s***@gmail.com
4. http://youtu.be/53oaHUTG5xc

Lower body carry - the man is putting his full weight on her buttocks.

Post by s***@gmail.com
5. http://youtu.be/OU051fcqkFY

Flat ground.

Post by s***@gmail.com
6. http://youtu.be/RdlJkk9Ia6k

Flat ground, and the woman collapses after a few paces.

Post by s***@gmail.com
7. http://youtu.be/MKhI_l8QLxI

The man is helping, using his elbow to put much of his weight on her
buttocks.

Post by s***@gmail.com
Apparently there's a whole genre of porn based around women picking up
and carrying men.

And you will notice that in that porn the man always has his hand or
elbow on the woman's hips or buttocks.



--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Brian M. Scott]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:12:46 -0800, Bill Swears
<***@gci.net> wrote in
<news:***@posted.mtasolutions>
in rec.arts.sf.misc:

[...]

Post by Bill Swears
Erol has been in hot water on this board quite a few times
for arguing the anti-PC/liberal side.

That's not my impression. Erol doesn't post all that often
in the first place, and while he has on occasion said (if
I'm remembering correctly this time) that he feels a bit
stifled by what he sees as the group's dominant liberal (in
the U.S. sense) consensus, I honestly can't recall any
significant brouhaha resulting from those posts.

Brian

[Catja Pafort]

Post by Brian M. Scott
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:12:46 -0800, Bill Swears
[...]

Post by Bill Swears
Erol has been in hot water on this board quite a few times
for arguing the anti-PC/liberal side.

That's not my impression. Erol doesn't post all that often
in the first place, and while he has on occasion said (if
I'm remembering correctly this time) that he feels a bit
stifled by what he sees as the group's dominant liberal (in
the U.S. sense) consensus, I honestly can't recall any
significant brouhaha resulting from those posts.

D'ya think his ability to put his point across without attacking anyone
might have anything to do with this?


Catja

[James A. Donald]

Post by Bill Swears

Post by James A. Donald
And what makes you think Erol K. Bayburt is a
conservative? If he is, he keeps it pretty close to
his chest, which was my point.

Bill Swears

Post by Bill Swears
That's you drawing the lines on what can be considered
"conservative." Erol has been in hot water on this
board quite a few times for arguing the
anti-PC/liberal side.

But that is not evidence he is conservative - or
indeed evidence that he has a political thought in his
head. On this forum, people get in trouble for failure
to have the correct PC thoughts in their head - you
don't have to oppose the ruling ideology, just fail to
demonstrate sufficiently enthusiastic support - you can,
like barf-man, get in hot water for *not* thinking about
it. You can, and people regularly do, get in hot water
for failure to hate the people that are to be hated, and
failure to hate them with sufficient vigor and
enthusiasm.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Bill Swears]

Post by James A. Donald
But that is not evidence he is conservative - or
indeed evidence that he has a political thought in his
head. On this forum, people get in trouble for failure
to have the correct PC thoughts in their head -

James, I absolutely fail to see such a ruling ideology, or even signs of
any significant political consensus. You complain about individuals who
disagree with you as though they were some supreme oligarchy, but they
have no more authority than you do. They should start railing about the
way you shout them down.

Bill

[James A. Donald]

Post by Bill Swears
James, I absolutely fail to see such a ruling
ideology, or even signs of any significant political
consensus.

Oh come on.

The ruling ideology is expressed frequently, loudly - and
often expressed using abusive language more appropriate
to a schoolyard or a drunken fishwife.

Childish abuse is not in itself evidence of dominion -
but social support for such childish behavior is
evidence of dominion. The dominant hen pecks, and is
not pecked.

Let us observe who makes the personal attacks, with
social support for such stupid and immature behavior,
and who expresses their position courteously, logically,
and provides supporting evidence.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[James A. Donald]

Post by Graham Woodland

David Friedman: very smart guy, poor social
skills (typical nerd), unfailingly courteous,
nice guy, makes conscientious efforts, sometimes
rather undignified and excessive efforts, to fit
in

Graham Woodland

Post by Graham Woodland

David is one of the good guys..

Quite so.

Graham Woodland

Post by Graham Woodland

You, James, appear to neglect the simpler
possibility that David bears an aura of
likeability not because he is trying too hard to
fit in(!!), but because he really does like people
and find them interesting by default.

He is markedly more confrontational and less eager
to please with people who are not part of the group
- therefore some of his motives are less admirable
and less dignified than liking people and finding
them interesting.

Graham Woodland

Post by Graham Woodland
I also cut my friends, and even my regular
sparring-partners, more slack than J Random Stranger.

It is not his regular partners that David Friedman gives
slack to.

Post by Graham Woodland

I find people interesting too - but generally I find
evil and madness the most interesting aspect of
people - understanding people does not necessarily
result in me sympathizing or respecting.

My interests are the reverse of yours, then. I think
goodwill and sanity are as much more various and
interesting,

Just as all happy families are alike, similarly each
sensible decent person is much the same as all the
others

Post by Graham Woodland

I'd *love* to know what orthodoxy covers everybody
from hardcore Communist to militant anti-statist
conservative

The only conservative I have noticed outing himself
in this group as a conservative is the very far from
militant Ric Locke, who describes the orthodoxy in
this group as "stifling" and "Leninist".

I don't think many Communists have outed themselves,
either

Communism is conspiratorial. Communists do not normally
identify themselves as such. Conservatives *do*
normally identify themselves as such. Communists are
for the most part forbidden to say "I am a communist".
If someone who is not part of a communist regime says "I
am a communist", he is probably lying. Any American who
actually is a card carrying member of the communist
party, is probably CIA. When communists hold real
meetings in a western country, rather than pretend
meetings for the benefit of the CIA, the organization
and the meeting has far too many names, or no name at
all.

Communism was in large part a reaction to the failure of
the revolution of 1848: Socialists made a successful
revolution, promptly held free and fair elections, and
promptly got voted out, with the socialist vote down in
the asterisks. Those who became the communists
concluded that the masses were in need of help and
guidance to make the correct decisions, which belief
they continue to adhere to today, hence the
conspiratorial character of communism.

Post by Graham Woodland

Any other conservatives keep their mouths shut and
their heads down.

Julian's sentiments are often most eloquently
conservative, in one of our best and most
time-honoured cispondian veins.

They are? Is this JF you are talking about?
***@ooopsfloodsclimbers.co.uk?

On reading this remarkable statement, I searched for
quite some time for a political statement by Julian
Flood. The only examples I could find was him attacking
Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", and him arguing with me
on a related topic. If he is conservative, he is surely
not "eloquently conservative". Eloquence would involve
somewhat greater output. I suppose if I kept on
searching, I would eventually find something that you
would think conservative, but if Julian Flood is an
"eloquent conservative", then conservatives are mighty
quiet.

Post by Graham Woodland
I have just discovered by Googling that another poster
I thought was clearly conservative

That is to say, somewhat to the right of Pol Pot.

Post by Graham Woodland
does not so self-identify, though she surely has not
exhibited much patience with the views you and Ric
dislike so much. It also turns out that I was so
wrong about the other 'obvious' candidate that I
didn't even hit the dartboard. So I will give you some
ground on that one: there are fewer *vocal*
conservatives here than I thought, and therefore
presumably fewer conservatives all told.

I believe the silent majority is by your peculiar
standards extreme right wing - but is intimidated into
silence.

Post by Graham Woodland

Any militant anti statists in this group, including
myself, keep their views fairly quiet, knowing that
plain speaking will get one howled down by a
screaming mob.

And if what you say here is not plain speaking, then I
guess you do well to do so.

Let us compare the reaction to "sweatshop", with the
reaction to "twat".

"Twat" evoked long ideological screams and lengthy
theoretical explanations as to why saying "twat" was
evil and hurtful - and when some people suggested that
one could say "twat" innocently enough, vast offense
ensued.

No one complained about "sweatshop", not even me.

Post by Graham Woodland
The group dynamic is just well buggered when it comes
to certain topics, and I have better things to do than
waste my time embuggering it further. I notice from
Lucy's brief re-appearance that she appears to have
come to an almost *exactly* similar conclusion, from a
political stance almost diametrically opposed to my
own.

Googling my discussion of socialism and recently
existent communism with you, Lucy's stance is pretty
much indistinguishable from your own - consider for
example your discussion of Lenin and Stalin in the
course of discussing "voluntary" socialism in the
thread:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@4ax.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4886f97b$***@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@4ax.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=48885531$***@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=***@4ax.com>

Your position is the Soviet line as the line was
revised after the fifty sixth congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, therefore would be
necessarily be endorsed by Lucy: Supposedly anything
wrong with the Soviet Union was Stalin's fault;
supposedly there is nothing inherently violent, inhuman,
and inefficient in socialism, nor indeed anything
inherently very wrong with the Soviet Union, apart from
one guy who died sixty years ago.

Post by Graham Woodland

Who did you have in mind as a militant anti statist
conservative?

I actually had you in mind, and our perspectives on
"fairly quiet" appear to differ somewhat.

I have remained quiet during every single inadvertent
provocations, for example "sweatshop". Your side tends
to go apocalyptic even when provoked quite inadvertently
by people who had absolutely no idea that they were
making a political statement.

Post by Graham Woodland
But "from Lucy to James", or "from Aqua to Ric", or
even "from Zeborah to Julian" are pretty *wide*
distributions by most people's measure, whether they
be skewed or no.

But Lucy, Aqua, and Zeborah are the orthodoxy - observe
that when Aqua made a stridently political attack out of
the blue on an entirely non political post by barf-man,
no one criticized her. Not you - and not me.

It is not like there are two sides in this newsgroup.
There is one overwhelmingly dominant voice, a single
hectoring, shouting, arrogant, demanding voice, rude,
ignorant, and rarely challenged.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[netcat]

Post by James A. Donald
It is not like there are two sides in this newsgroup.
There is one overwhelmingly dominant voice, a single
hectoring, shouting, arrogant, demanding voice, rude,
ignorant, and rarely challenged.

Since they all up and left, isn't it time to quit complaining and start
enjoying your victory? The weeping and lamenting of women has been
heard. The real men can finally relax and be happy now. But I see they
instead prefer to whine about being wronged, ad infinitum.

rgds,
netcat

[David Friedman]

Post by David Friedman
observe
that when Aqua made a stridently political attack out of
the blue on an entirely non political post by barf-man,
no one criticized her. Not you - and not me.

Actually, I did. Several times. For instance:
---

Post by David Friedman

a troll.

Whereas Aqua, whose contribution to the discussion was even more
violently and unnecessarily ideologically loaded than James' usual
level, isn't?

----

Post by David Friedman
Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues,

---

Post by David Friedman
You are trying to bring racefail 09 to
rec.arts.sf.composition - despite the fact that it has
no relevance to this thread's topic.
Racefail 09 is exactly the situation that we warned
everyone that political correctness would bring about -
where politically correct readers get to say what a
writer means, and the writer has no say as to what he
supposedly means, but is nonetheless wholly responsible
for any offensive meaning discovered by the hostile
reader.
Second, Zeborah is hurt
by language that was directed at Aqua, when Aqua initiated the argument
in question.

---

[James A. Donald]

Post by David Friedman
observe
that when Aqua made a stridently political attack out of
the blue on an entirely non political post by barf-man,
no one criticized her. Not you - and not me.

---

Post by David Friedman

a troll.

Whereas Aqua, whose contribution to the discussion was even more
violently and unnecessarily ideologically loaded than James' usual
level, isn't?

----

Post by David Friedman
Aqua can post an ideological rant in the form
of an attack on someone for the offense of trying to shift the
conversation towards writing related issues,

Not a direct personal attack - Your behavior was not equivalent to
those of the ruling ideology - who if anyone disagreeing with their
ideology had ever behaved as they behave would have written direct
personal attacks, the usual stuff being
"you are a troll", "you are a moron" etc.

Post by David Friedman
You are trying to bring racefail 09 to
rec.arts.sf.composition - despite the fact that it has
no relevance to this thread's topic.
Racefail 09 is exactly the situation that we warned
everyone that political correctness would bring about -
where politically correct readers get to say what a
writer means, and the writer has no say as to what he
supposedly means, but is nonetheless wholly responsible
for any offensive meaning discovered by the hostile
reader.

Again, no personal denigration or explicit condemnation.

People of the dominant ideology typically engage in childish personal
attacks "you are a troll", you are witless"

Indeed failure to engage in such personal attacks is itself attacked -
those who fail to sound like a nine year old child throwing a temper
tantrum are condemned for "tolerating sexism, racism, homophobia, and
other prejudices"

F


--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/

[Bill Swears]

Post by James A. Donald
It is not like there are two sides in this newsgroup.
There is one overwhelmingly dominant voice, a single
hectoring, shouting, arrogant, demanding voice, rude,
ignorant, and rarely challenged.

James.

Notwithstanding your opinion on this matter, you are not the dominant
voice on the newsgroup. The fact that we seldom respond to your
outrageous sallies is not caused by agreement, or inattention. It is
simply a lack of desire to begin a pointless confrontation.

Bill

[Graham Woodland]

James A. Donald wrote:

<Much snippage here; for all men, including me, are mortal:>

Post by James A. Donald
Googling my discussion of socialism and recently
existent communism with you, Lucy's stance is pretty
much indistinguishable from your own -

It is true that I like Lucy, but it is unkind of you to make me
choke on my Sibirskaya and splork it all over my laptop.

consider for

Post by James A. Donald
example your discussion of Lenin and Stalin in the
course of discussing "voluntary" socialism in the
Your position is the Soviet line as the line was
revised after the fifty sixth congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, therefore would be
necessarily be endorsed by Lucy: Supposedly anything
wrong with the Soviet Union was Stalin's fault;
supposedly there is nothing inherently violent, inhuman,
and inefficient in socialism, nor indeed anything
inherently very wrong with the Soviet Union, apart from
one guy who died sixty years ago.

Well, smack me with a wet fish and call me Tila Tequila! (No.
Really. Don't!) Did you somehow miss all the bits where I
called our present Western civilisation yet insufficiently
*individualist* for my taste, and mentioned that my fictional,
much-improved, benevolent, and deitically-competent Leninoid
central planner had only managed to create a society that was not
called "the Dark Lord's Commonwealth without reason"?! And I
specifically said, in one of the above posts, that he was *much*
more like Lenin than Stalin.

My position is in fact the 'line' that all non-voluntarist
Communism, as in the Soviet type, sucks sucks sucks like few
other things which don't actually possess their own event
horizons; and that nobody's voluntarist Communist collectives
have yet succeeded in drawing me within their loving folds, on
the grounds that I don't like them. Nonetheless, I think that
*some* arguments against Communism are *bad* ones, and some other
arguments are good now, but don't necessarily hold that status
regardless of technological change. This is also true of some
arguments against just about anything.

Should you wish to prove to your own satisfaction, by close
reasoning over my entire Usenet output, that what I really want
is Wolfie Smith and the Tooting Popular Front to take over my
country right now and set everything to rights with a stern
application of Marxism-Grouchoism to our decadent bourgeois
hides, then it is a free net and there is nothing I would do to
stop you. I hope you will not consider it too much of a
discourtesy when I hypocritically bugger off to Ireland, Hong
Kong, or the good seastead _TANSTAAFL_, the instant the Great Day
comes around. Gosh, we Commies are as perfidious as old Albion
itself, ain't we?

There is really little point in continuing any such discussions
as this when you are so determined to construe, "The People's
Soviets can kiss my arse," into "I am so crazy about the People's
Soviets that I wish to have kinky sexual relations with them."

Yes, I do wish to have civil discussions with socialists, about
socialism, though clearly even *.misc has not been a wise venue
for it.

Yes, I do accept the logical possibility that I may be wrong and
they right on any given point.

Yes, this is precisely interesting because I am emphatically not
a socialist myself, and I wonder about how technology may change
the game and maybe lead to something that *really scares the shit
out of me*!

But I smile. And I ask. And when it falls to me to play Devil's
Advocate, I would be true to the Adversary's case in breath and
blood and bone, lest the worlds I build without benefit of it
prove a lie, and die into the dust.

Think it possible, that I love a lie no better than do you.

Think it impossible, that you are going to convince me anything
to the contrary.

[James A. Donald]

On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:04:54 +0100, Graham Woodland

Post by Graham Woodland
There is really little point in continuing any such
discussions as this when you are so determined to
construe, "The People's Soviets can kiss my arse,"
into "I am so crazy about the People's Soviets that I
wish to have kinky sexual relations with them."

In our past discussions, you have failed to acknowledge
the major crimes of the Soviet Union, while taking for
granted various entirely imaginary crimes of the US.

The main difference between Lucy and you is that Lucy is
locked solid to absolute truth of her version whereas
you would express an "open minded" position - which
from where I stand looks like the difference between
someone who believes he has personally met the risen
Elvis on a flying saucer, and the "open minded" fellow
who is willing to consider the possibility that flying
saucers carrying the risen Elvis may not necessarily be
all that they seem.

This looks like a huge difference to you, because in
your circle, no one acknowledges the major crimes of the
Soviet Union, and those that do are evil crazies and a
threat to liberty. Also, in your circle it is insanely
rude and terribly offensive to mention any of the major
crimes of the Soviet Union, while blaming Americans for
conditions in countries controlled by their enemies is
sheer politeness and good manners and a demonstration of
good character and benevolence.

--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/