Other News & General Chat

[6666]

[Fairy In Boots]

 

when she brought a knife to a gun fight 😂😂😂. 

I had press training last week, we were given roles at the start I was Chris Grayling and the trainer was Paxman, I had no prep and because I had nothing I was just honest and said I didn’t know etc. The result was as my peers put it “Abbott 2.0” & “you were too honest”

Then after the training when, we repeated the exercise and feedback was the message I’d been given to convey. I was able to see the traps being laid and prepared to not answer and repeat my message.

The media are a huge factor in the type of politics we have, the style of attacking and digging displayed here winds you up or discourages honesty. 

[Honey Honey]

3 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

 

when she brought a knife to a gun fight 😂😂😂. 

Well. That was an interviewer out of their depth against a highly trained and serial debater. At times it was hard to watch.

That is also the first time I have ever seen Jordan Peterson smile or laugh. He is usually riled up, miserable, shouty and angry.

[Danny]

I've not watched it but they often bring in people who are easily wound up to discuss feminist issues to create an explosive argument.

[Fairy In Boots]

4 hours ago, Kitchen Sales said:

Well. That was an interviewer out of their depth against a highly trained and serial debater. At times it was hard to watch.

That is also the first time I have ever seen Jordan Peterson smile or laugh. He is usually riled up, miserable, shouty and angry.

It was so obvious how she was twisting it. As you said he was just too good for her and able to keep his composure which enabled him to pick apart the attempted narrative she was trying to portray. 

[The Artful Dodger]

Peterson is one of the better, more intelligent right-wingers who articulates his points well. Still disagree with his main points, seems dripping in the usual paranoia and fear of change as the rest of them.

[Danny]

5 minutes into that and you know how that's going to play out, he's far too intelligent to get caught up in that sort of questioning.

I do question people who have a war against the pay gap, largely the same people who have a personal war against any issue that is prevalent amongst modern feminists that isn't along the lines of female genital mutation.

[Spike]

Petersen is Kermit the Frog and a hypocrite. 'I'm for free speech, but you can't speak because you're too unruly'. - Petersen on a reporter during a press conference he held. Very smart man that has monetised his position impressively (patron, speaking events, conference fees, etc) but since he is such a public figure now, the more he makes appearances the more material he provides to poke holes in his ideologies. The smart reporter would pore over his works, looking for every slip up.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Spike

[Spike]

8 hours ago, Danny said:

5 minutes into that and you know how that's going to play out, he's far too intelligent to get caught up in that sort of questioning.

I do question people who have a war against the pay gap, largely the same people who have a personal war against any issue that is prevalent amongst modern feminists that isn't along the lines of female genital mutation.

It has been thoroughly debunked a billions times by economists. I trust an economist over a person concerned with social issues. There is no wage gap, but there is a discrepancy in social expectations between men and women, whether that is derived from a natural order (the gatherer vs the hunter) or a cultural preference towards men working is up for debate. I find the 'wage gap' tiring and very pointless, but an examination of gender expectations and roles in the workforce is much more intriguing. Is our social hierarchy an extrapolation of the natural order? or is it a creation through thousands of years of cultural evolution that is no longer relevant in the modern world? Is it the nature of man to work in a risky environment for high reward? is the nature of woman to care for their offspring over working? or is it society that influences us?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#69515c682596
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21729993-women-still-earn-lot-less-men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender
https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3
https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

Edited January 18, 2018 by Spike

[Fairy In Boots]

11 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Peterson is one of the better, more intelligent right-wingers who articulates his points well. Still disagree with his main points, seems dripping in the usual paranoia and fear of change as the rest of them.

He’s not a really a right winger he identifies as a classic liberal which traditionally is left of center. In today’s modern world though if you’re not echoing the feminazi doctrine and ignoring basic science with gender identity you’re “a right winger” .

 

 

2 hours ago, Spike said:

It has been thoroughly debunked a billions times by economists. I trust an economist over a person concerned with social issues. There is no wage gap, but there is a discrepancy in social expectations between men and women, whether that is derived from a natural order (the gatherer vs the hunter) or a cultural preference towards men working is up for debate. I find the 'wage gap' tiring and very pointless, but an examination of gender expectations and roles in the workforce is much more intriguing. Is our social hierarchy an extrapolation of the natural order? or is it a creation through thousands of years of cultural evolution that is no longer relevant in the modern world? Is it the nature of man to work in a risky environment for high reward? is the nature of woman to care for their offspring over working? or is it society that influences us?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/04/12/dont-buy-into-the-gender-pay-gap-myth/#69515c682596
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21729993-women-still-earn-lot-less-men-despite-decades-equal-pay-laws-why-gender
https://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-economist-explains-the-gender-wage-gap-2016-3
https://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap

Women are far more likely to have careers in vocational roles which are normally lower on the pay scale to, the whole argument is a crock of shit. As a boss you’re interested in paying what people are worth, many similarly aged men are on different salaries doing similar roles within the same company. 

[Spike]

3 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

He’s not a really a right winger he identifies as a classic liberal which traditionally is left of center. In today’s modern world though if you’re not echoing the feminazi doctrine and ignoring basic science with gender identity you’re “a right winger” .

 

 

Women are far more likely to have careers in vocational roles which are normally lower on the pay scale to, the whole argument is a crock of shit. As a boss you’re interested in paying what people are worth, many similarly aged men are on different salaries doing similar roles within the same company. 

Women typically report far higher job satisfaction then men, not exactly something to not be proud of. It seems women tend to follow what they 'want' to do, versus what 'I need to do to earn more'.

[Fairy In Boots]

4 minutes ago, Spike said:

Women typically report far higher job satisfaction then men, not exactly something to not be proud of. It seems women tend to follow what they 'want' to do, versus what 'I need to do to earn more'.

Indeed my Mrs is at home with the kids at present but wants to go back to being a nurse in a shitty NHS job after, I’ve tried telling her I’ll pay for a qualification in a field with greater earning potential but she won’t have it. 

[Spike]

2 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Indeed my Mrs is at home with the kids at present but wants to go back to being a nurse in a shitty NHS job after, I’ve tried telling her I’ll pay for a qualification in a field with greater earning potential but she won’t have it. 

Aye, because it isn't always about earning money. My Mrs. won't even entertain the idea of working somewhere she'd hate.

Edited January 18, 2018 by Spike

[Fairy In Boots]

6 minutes ago, Spike said:

Aye, because it isn't always about earning money. My Mrs. won't even entertain the idea of working somewhere she'd hate.

Where as I’ve done jobs I hate to keep the Wolves from the door

[Honey Honey]

It's a useless measure but it doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. Unless you do something radical like the Norweigens do where everyone gets to know each others salary then whatever discrimination is left will continue to go under the radar. 

Statisticians can't estimate discrimination on these large national scales because the data never goes deep enough, there isn't the time or man power to do that. 

[Fairy In Boots]

6 hours ago, Kitchen Sales said:

It's a useless measure but it doesn't mean discrimination doesn't exist. Unless you do something radical like the Norweigens do where everyone gets to know each others salary then whatever discrimination is left will continue to go under the radar. 

Statisticians can't estimate discrimination on these large national scales because the data never goes deep enough, there isn't the time or man power to do that. 

It’s the age old thing of if you want something do it yourself. I negotiate my salary every year, if I don’t get a decent rise base on performance I look for other jobs. 2-3 times I’ve put notice in only to renegotiate salary and withdraw my notice, you’ll get the piss taken out of you if you let it. 

[The Artful Dodger]

12 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

He’s not a really a right winger he identifies as a classic liberal which traditionally is left of center. In today’s modern world though if you’re not echoing the feminazi doctrine and ignoring basic science with gender identity you’re “a right winger” .

 

 

Women are far more likely to have careers in vocational roles which are normally lower on the pay scale to, the whole argument is a crock of shit. As a boss you’re interested in paying what people are worth, many similarly aged men are on different salaries doing similar roles within the same company. 

A classic British liberal is right-wing economically, which chimes with his individualist ethos. Socially it’s difficult to pigeon hole attitudes as left or right but he seems to echo a lot of the consevative right, just in more academic language. 

[Honey Honey]

4 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

It’s the age old thing of if you want something do it yourself. I negotiate my salary every year, if I don’t get a decent rise base on performance I look for other jobs. 2-3 times I’ve put notice in only to renegotiate salary and withdraw my notice, you’ll get the piss taken out of you if you let it. 

That might make you feel like you won yourself a better deal but without knowing the value of your worth against others you don't really know whether you did win something more or not.

There is a hidden component to it all, exploitation. In the absence of trade unions knowing what the benchmarks are is of use. For example I once applied for a job where the advert said salary between X and X depending on experience. In the interview when asked what salary I was looking for I plumped for the middle number, not having a clue what my own value was except from previous employment as a reference. I was then offered the job with a salary offer that was the max, but I had no idea how they came to that conclusion. 

The market doesn't work in favour of the worker if the worker is required to have a personality lacking in agreeableness in order to reduce the probability of being mugged off.

 

[6666]

On 1/18/2018 at 09:50, Danny said:

5 minutes into that and you know how that's going to play out, he's far too intelligent to get caught up in that sort of questioning.

I do question people who have a war against the pay gap, largely the same people who have a personal war against any issue that is prevalent amongst modern feminists that isn't along the lines of female genital mutation.

In terms of a gender pay gap existing as far as men on average earning more than woman then of course it exists. The issue that many rational people find difficult to get on board with the disingenuous manner in which statistics are presented where some feminists (the social media brand of feminist) suggest that gender pay gap statistics are definitive proof of sexism when in reality the statistics are just leads that you'll need to follow to see if you can find evidence rather than it already being evidence. They don't take into account the reality of choices made by women themselves to either work in sectors that don't pay high wages (because that's where their interests lie) or to not work because of family commitments (I know some will argue that's an example of sexism but if a couple have decided that's how things will work for them then that's hardly something to tackle and it's the same if they've decided to do things the other way round). Even after taken those things into account you still have to investigate statistics to find out if they're a result of sexism or if it's just coincidental data. I don't think things are as poorly represented here as in America where they just straight up interchange between "wage gap" and "unequal pay" like they're the same thing.

It's truly laughable when things like sports & film are brought into the conversation. The most obvious point of "the bigger star you are and the more public interest you can draw, the more negotiation power you have" seems to be ignored.

If genuine examples of sexism are found, and most likely there are a lot of examples out there to find, and they tackle those situations then fair enough but the conversation at the moment seems to be around the idea of sexism rather than anything else.

[Fairy In Boots]

1 hour ago, Kitchen Sales said:

That might make you feel like you won yourself a better deal but without knowing the value of your worth against others you don't really know whether you did win something more or not.

There is a hidden component to it all, exploitation. In the absence of trade unions knowing what the benchmarks are is of use. For example I once applied for a job where the advert said salary between X and X depending on experience. In the interview when asked what salary I was looking for I plumped for the middle number, not having a clue what my own value was except from previous employment as a reference. I was then offered the job with a salary offer that was the max, but I had no idea how they came to that conclusion. 

The market doesn't work in favour of the worker if the worker is required to have a personality lacking in agreeableness in order to reduce the probability of being mugged off.

 

Sites like glassdoor & payscale etc frequently give salary predictions and averages based on the various variables. You don't need a trade union who're exploiting themselves to tell you.  

[Stan]

what a sentence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42811304

Quote

 

Ex-US Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar has been sentenced to 40 to 175 years after testimony from nearly 160 of his victims.

The judge dismissed Nassar's attempted apology as insincere, saying he would "be in darkness the rest of his life".

Nassar pleaded guilty to 10 counts of sexual assault against girls and young women, including Olympians.

The 54-year-old had already been sentenced to 60 years for possession of child pornography.

Judge Rosemarie Aquilina told Nassar during the sentencing: "As much as it was my honour and privilege to hear the sister survivors, it was my honour and privilege to sentence you.

"Because, sir, you do not deserve to walk outside of a prison ever again."

She told the paedophile: "You have not owned yet what you did. I wouldn't send my dogs to you, sir.

"I've just signed your death warrant".

But Judge Aquilina revealed he had written a letter to her after his guilty plea claiming his accusers had "fabricated" allegations to gain money and fame.

Court spectators gasped as the judge read a passage in which Nassar said he had been "manipulated" into admitting his guilt.

"I was a good doctor because my treatments worked, and those patients that are now speaking out are the same ones that praised and came back over and over," Nassar wrote.

He added in the letter: "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

As the judge finished her sentence, witnesses in the packed courtroom stood and applauded her verdict.

His sentencing follows a week of harrowing testimony from scores of women, including Olympic gold medal gymnasts Aly Raisman and Jordyn Weiber.

 

 

[Inverted]

The issue with the pay gap is that it makes it sound like men get paid more than women for the same roles which is basically impossible to get with. 

It drives people away because it simplifies the problem it tries to draw attention to - the aggregation of various different factors that make it harder for women to earn as much. They can be partly voluntary through things like a lot of girls feeling socially pressured to be less assertive from a young age, or more restrictive things like maternity leave stalling your career a lot, while men have too little leave, meaning that men lose out too, just not in career terms. 

The use of the buzz word just leaves people on one side saying "there is no pay discrimination" and being right in a purely literal sense, and feminists confusing the issue by lack of clarity.  People tend to just talk past each other. 

And people bringing in the pay of casts in major Hollywood films also fucks the discussion because the pay negotiations for actors' rates are not remotely comparable to the wage system for normal people. 

Edit: and Peterson annoys me because although I can't question his reputation as a psychologist and I honestly sympathise with him sometimes (because the horrific makeup of his fanbase means that people assume he's a bigot by association), but he is also guilty of simplifying things.

On the pay gap thing he isn't trying to dismiss womens' concerns but instead look more deeply into the solutions, and struggling against people who want to paint him either for or against. 

But in other areas he is guilty of the same thing. He attacks things like "cultural Marxism" without real explanations of what he means, and grossly simplifies or distorts the message of various philosophers with a leftist leaning, often criticising them with no reading of their actual work. 

The thing is that the pay gap issue is way more visible, and it allows him to paint himself as the voice of reason in the face of shrieking leftists, when actually he displays very similar impulses in other areas of debate. 

Edited January 26, 2018 by Inverted

[Stan]

earthquake in Swansea

 

[Stan]

1 minute ago, Cannabis said:

@Bluebird Hewitt just fell over.

bit harsh. 

[Machado]

Wow 4.7 !!!!!!!!!!!1