I dismiss modern social sciences because they have made it impossible not to dismiss them by making absurd claims that are easily refutable and arguably do nothing to better society-- how the fuck is hiring or granting tuition assistance based on applicant's identity equate to social progress, when their identity makes up so little of their effectual background?

If race is a social construct, then tell me why the fuck they insist on making things about race more than it ever was before instead of embracing objective equality?

This incongruence is the exact reason extremist groups have no trouble finding new members-- anyone embracing these half-cooked, bad-faith movements is actively driving neutral parties into the arms of the extremists. By treating the neutral party as the enemy, you make them your enemy. I affiliate with no social groups because of how awful they are, but I assure you I will always undermine DEI however I can in my day-to-day job duties simply because those behind the movement threw the first punch.

I see humans as humans. And I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else says they are. They are humans, they will be treated like humans the same as all other humans are treated, no better, no worse, and their identity means zilch.

commenting before I go to bed to point out you have contributed nothing to this discussion, instead using the opportunity for an attempt at being offensive.

This is also ignoring their segregated schooling being underfunded

I attended an underfunded public school system. It was intentionally underfunded by the state because of class/income segregation, not racial segregation. Caucasians were a statistical minority there.

not being welcomed into higher ed unless at specific 'negro' universities

I was denied my father's "transferrable" GI bill by the federal government and received no substantial tuition assistance, had to work full-time through college to pay tuition. The tuition assistance I did receive was specifically established to empower disadvantaged households regardless of race, and was minimal.

their crippled career prospects due to their skin color- why don't we then measure them on merit?

I am 100% self-taught in all technology and computer topics I've mastered. All I had was Google and 5Mbps. My parents did not encourage my exploration, and even dissuaded or hampered it often.

Ignore that if a black man has a novel idea then they must then have the idea reviewed into perpetuity while one of the white reviewers just so happens to come up with the same idea then publishes before the black man [ . . . ] modern publishing is blind in most every respectable journal because of this issue. It is only after being accepted is the author identity revealed to the reviewers.

Am I having a stroke or did you just contradict yourself? Why exactly would a black man's publication be reviewed "into perpetuity" if the reviewers know nothing of their race? Furthermore, I am clearly arguing that their race means absolutely nothing and therefore would not be considered in review.

Let me reiterate: I have seen worse.

In fact, Disney once paid a lot of money for a game with even less concept art and design. Unsurprisingly, this game was never released and very little record of it remains. And when I say it was worse. For those who think they know: yes, I'm talking about the viking bears.

Because modern day social scientists have legitimately lost the plot and think it's more important to for careers to be built by ethnicity rather than merit, and call any alternative a matter of facilitating and furthering "privilege" with no data to back up their claims.

I know people who have been pushed out of labs and bullied into quitting their degree programs just because they were hetero white males. I am unfortunately not kidding, not exaggerating, and the details I am leaving out only make the circumstances worse.

Academics have quietly acknowledged that academia itself is dying because of this and other issues that call the validity of modern science literature into question.

I have a friend who is published in Nature, and I'm very tempted to send them this article. They have already stated that being published in Nature means nothing these days to anyone who actually pays attention to what they publish, and this is just further proof of it.

For all who digress: I welcome all downvotes. I am not trolling, I am not inciting, I am laying out the honest truth as it has been illustrated to me by credible academics over the past five years. I don't care what you learned in social sciences. I don't care who published what. You seek to undermine academia by making merit moot and for that I respect you less than I even respect Silicon Valley-- that is to say, dismally little. And idgaf what you label me because if you are on the other side of this, your words mean absolutely nothing to me and never will.

You know what's ironic about all this is, as someone who has seen game dev pitches (not good ones), they arguably had their shit together more than most aspiring game devs. Looking back at the skeletals, ya know they actually may have had a chance of getting somewhere. They knew absolutely nothing about the technical side, but hardly any game devs actually do. They probably still stand a better chance today of developing this than some game studios asset-mashing in Unity or Unreal. That's the true state of game dev.

But if he starts acting out once they have him in cuffs, screaming about how his special mister person privileges are being violated, won't they be putting him back in the cell?

I see your point, but the premise backed by that last sentence is fundamentally flawed in my eyes because prejudice leads to division. If you assume there is a high chance that any man you meet is a rapist, then you'll avoid men and eventually have so little interaction with men that you begin to believe they all de facto equate to this mental image of a monster. And that is the problem.

I'm going to follow this up later, maybe not today, with my interpretation of rape statistics for anyone willing to discuss, because now I'm curious how that would contribute to this discussion. Here's what I have so far, anyone is free to contribute to the discussion:

According to RAINN:

• ~18% US females experience sexual assault
• ~3% US males experience sexual assault

What I'm looking for specifically here, in addition to other context, is what percentage of each anatomical sex demographic is responsible for perpetrating. It is perhaps a given that it will be disproportionately male, but I need numbers to illustrate my perspective. Also need to account for domestic abuse and whatever else can be used as an argument for why either sex is dangerous to the other, open to any serious suggestions, will ignore any insincere discussion at this point.

when this is the only argument they can make, even they know they've lost.

(referring to this user specifically, not the other commenters)

They're actually not that unaffordable, I was surprised. Starts at like $600 for single person 3-day, which isn't amazing but is pretty fair as vacation budgets go.

"yeah.... by male Nazis"

~ you

I like your family, they sound like good people.

As a man, I still would not go jogging at night because that's just generally unsafe. That's how you get mugged, regardless of sex.

Undisputed best comment in the whole thread, as proven by vote.

Yeah I agree with everything in this comment except for the unnecessary hostility in the last sentence.

People can be slutty if they want. And people can judge you for being or appearing slutty if they want. It's up to you to decide how to react to their opinions. If you want to dress slutty, then you shouldn't care what people think about how you dress because you are just being you. And that's not a matter of sex-- that's a matter of self confidence. And you can't blame your self confidence on other people, because at the end of the day you can't change other people. You can either change yourself or empower yourself to resist change and forge your own path. It's your choice.

Someone never cruised before social media was invented and now suffers brain rot. A lot of people actually.

Stare out at a vast expanse of water and think about life, children.

He knows that the rabid Republicans will try to twist it to say that he was jailed to prevent him from attending his own hearing. When they would gladly teleconference him in from the cell, like they do with other criminals. But that's not good enough for Donald Duck. Either this Jack-o'-lantern gets to sit there and look pretty or he will scream and cry a fit until election day comes around and it's too late.

It's all part of the nut factory's plan.

And A is for Addicted to Adderall

I can't be the only anatomical male out there that both agrees with the sentiment but also hates the statement. Say what you will, it's stereotyping against a sex, and therefore sexism by definition. No distinction is made that it's the shitty men. And if any man were to protest against it, they would be labelled an aggressor and dismissed as mad for being challenged or called out when they are simply protesting unconcealed prejudice.

social media was a preceding mistake