"Ghostbusters" Director Faces Backlash after Promising to "Hand Movie Back to Fans"

Status
Not open for further replies.

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,352
I really don't have a problem with movies being rebooted with female casts. However the last ghostbusters was terrible and everyone knows it even the people that made it.

It looked more like a direct to video scooby-do reboot then a ghostbusters movie.

Yes I hope Reitman returns to the more realistic warmer feeling movie making of his father. If anyone should be annoyed it's him after seeing Paul Feig turn one of his fathers most beloved works into ScoobyDo 14. I defended the female casting and I still think it could have been genius... and if they had have just added a CGI dog they would have got away with it too.
Be careful what you call "ScoobyDo 14." I thought that was the working title for the shitshow that became Ghostbusters 2: lost in Goo York

Ivan Reitman doesn't have a very good record of making his own sequel. Why hold the 2016 reboot over the fire for just continuing the shit parade started by it's creator?

I don't think Ghostbusters 2016 is any worse than Ghostbusters 2: Look Who's Talking Edition

And I think we're in agreement that there was nothing wrong with the all-woman cast, just the result!

Here's to hoping Paul Rudd doesn't fuck this one up, and we can finally have a decent sequel. He was pretty good as Ant Man, but this will require a different kind of straight man comedy.
 

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,392
I hope they do a 2016 mention in #3 and TRASH IT!
Nah, what they need to do is have the Ghostbusters get called to Santa Anita, where they find a horde of ghost nerds beating a dead horse, and there is the ghost of a female jockey screaming, "You shouldn't beat a horse because the jockey was female!"

Then the Ghostbusters silently suck them all up, and on the way back to headquarters everyone is really quiet, and then Egon says, "That was weird." And they stop for ice cream.
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,766
Hollywood previous few decades:

We should be able to make movies the fans want to see no matter what the content is and damn special interest groups!

Hollywood now:

We should only be making movies that cater to the special interest groups we have today!
Maybe that is why, but it doesn't make any sense to me...

I support women getting equal pay. I support women not getting raped or felt up by Harvey Weinstein or any other perv. I support women getting more paid time off for newborns.

And I a SJW? Let's pretend that I am and I want to promote the above agenda. How does making a movie with all female leads do this?

I don't see the point... and if anything, it comes across as "anti-male". You do not need to be anti-male to be pro-equality-for-females.

And the abortion that was the Last Jedi, just shit all over 6 movies and 40 years of canon, didn't do anything to change my mind about anything that might have been someones "agenda", all it did was ruin any hope for more good star wars movies.

So yeah, this kind of "activism" is fucking stupid.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the Ghostbusters 2016 movie yet. No desire to after the reviews.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,591
Maybe that is why, but it doesn't make any sense to me...

I support women getting equal pay. I support women not getting raped or felt up by Harvey Weinstein or any other perv. I support women getting more paid time off for newborns.

And I a SJW? Let's pretend that I am and I want to promote the above agenda. How does making a movie with all female leads do this?

I don't see the point... and if anything, it comes across as "anti-male". You do not need to be anti-male to be pro-equality-for-females.

And the abortion that was the Last Jedi, just shit all over 6 movies and 40 years of canon, didn't do anything to change my mind about anything that might have been someones "agenda", all it did was ruin any hope for more good star wars movies.

So yeah, this kind of "activism" is fucking stupid.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the Ghostbusters 2016 movie yet. No desire to after the reviews.
You're an SJW if you don't acknowledge its been illegal since the 1960 to not have equal pay. Two people with the same skills, education, experience, and work output must be paid the same by law no matter who they are. If they aren't they have a sweet lawsuit opportunity or one of those things is different.
 

sfsuphysics

I don't get it
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
14,027
Just make a good movie, don’t pander, don’t make claims, don’t work to an agenda... Just make a good movie that tells a good story. The rest of that stuff will work itself out.
Isn't the act of making a sequel in some way"pandering"?
 

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,990
You're an SJW if you don't acknowledge its been illegal since the 1960 to not have equal pay. Two people with the same skills, education, experience, and work output must be paid the same by law no matter who they are. If they aren't they have a sweet lawsuit opportunity or one of those things is different.
Yes but the experience and work out put is always left out for a reason. All she see is same title.
 

equinox654

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
322
I think the wage gap is bs. Men and women by and large choose different fields to work in and devote different amounts of time to work.

I am out numbered by women at work. I make more than all but one of them. I design all of our products and they do inside sales, purchasing and logistics. I would imagine they also work 36 to 38 hours a week judging by when they come in and leave every day.

My first wife made slightly more than me on an hourly basis but I made on average 10-15k a year more than her.

My current wife is a Veterinarian and makes way more than I do.... Its all in the job you do and the time that you put in.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
I think the wage gap is bs. Men and women by and large choose different fields to work in and devote different amounts of time to work.

I am out numbered by women at work. I make more than all but one of them. I design all of our products and they do inside sales, purchasing and logistics. I would imagine they also work 36 to 38 hours a week judging by when they come in and leave every day.

My first wife made slightly more than me on an hourly basis but I made on average 10-15k a year more than her.

My current wife is a Veterinarian and makes way more than I do.... Its all in the job you do and the time that you put in.
If you construct silly cross-comparisons without any comparable basis other than being "employment" and your inability to differentiate between them, then you've certainly made some kind of point just not the one you thought you were making.

"Gee, I work in an office space and my wife's a doctor. She makes more than me, therefore all pay scales are equitable...derp"
 

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
270
If you construct silly cross-comparisons without any comparable basis other than being "employment" and your inability to differentiate between them, then you've certainly made some kind of point just not the one you thought you were making.

"Gee, I work in an office space and my wife's a doctor. She makes more than me, therefore all pay scales are equitable...derp"
If ...
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,850
If you construct silly cross-comparisons without any comparable basis other than being "employment" and your inability to differentiate between them, then you've certainly made some kind of point just not the one you thought you were making.

"Gee, I work in an office space and my wife's a doctor. She makes more than me, therefore all pay scales are equitable...derp"
How do you think they came up with that 77 cent figure in the first place?

They took all the men and all the women added up all the wages then averaged them based on sex and that's it
 

equinox654

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
322
That was exactly my point. They are taking averages.
Men tend to do work that pays more. It is not universally true... which is why I gave the example of my wife, but enough women choose lower paying work that it brings the averages down.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,850
That was exactly my point. They are taking averages.
Men tend to do work that pays more. It is not universally true... which is why I gave the example of my wife, but enough women choose lower paying work that it brings the averages down.
Also you have to account for overtime vacations maternity leave and willingness to ask for raises.

The wage gao has been debunked a million times and it simply can't stand up to scrutiny
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
Ironically its mostly women who spend the money...
Well, honestly, that needs more research into it.
Because while it includes the umpfteenth gucci handbag, it also includes groceries, diapers for the kids and other stuff.

So by itself, without more information, that stat is a bit worthless.
 

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,990
Well, honestly, that needs more research into it.
Because while it includes the umpfteenth gucci handbag, it also includes groceries, diapers for the kids and other stuff.

So by itself, without more information, that stat is a bit worthless.
It really doesn't matter people will believe the studies that favors their agenda and denounce any other study that does not fit their agenda. It is pointless arguing nowadays. If you don't agree with their way of thinking then you are either a sexist, racist, or w/e.
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
It really doesn't matter people will believe the studies that favors their agenda and denounce any other study that does not fit their agenda. It is pointless arguing nowadays. If you don't agree with their way of thinking then you are either a sexist, racist, or w/e.
I know!
Which is especially funny since I'd be quite high on the progressive stack... If I'd want to be there XD
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
That was exactly my point. They are taking averages.
Men tend to do work that pays more. It is not universally true... which is why I gave the example of my wife, but enough women choose lower paying work that it brings the averages down.
No, they don't just average across the entire labor pool. Why would you think that's how research is conducted? All you have to do is ask your wife, since she must have taken graduate level statistics and research methodology before earning her degree. It's not difficult in this day and age to find and read publicly accessible studies in any specific industry exploring this robust finding. There are no credible studies backing your assertions, only internet talking heads. I have never read a study by an actual researcher, regardless of political perspective, who argued against the wage gap although I have seen explain it in various ways. In fact, there's a relatively strong argument to be made as to certain personality traits and/or social choices that might explain the gap--but even those positions don't deny the gap exists at all. Here's one article describing the methodology used to control for a number of variables. For starters, the comparison (in your example) would be to compare vet wages across gender--not across the entire fucking labor market! http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/gender-wage-gap-veterinary-medicine-clinical-confidence-factor

One day, when you're bored from venting on a tech forum about how all the womens in your office are taking too many breaks to earn as much as you, you can take some time and effort to actually read the research instead of taking whatever you hear on the net for granted. When you do that, you'll learn that the main reason female earners' wages are more comparable to male earners' wages in recent decades is because male earners' wages have been steadily compressing since the 60s; the timeframe coincides with women taking more college courses, those courses becoming more educational rather than vocational, and those graduates entering traditionally male labor markets thereby pushing wages down, which were male wage earners at the time. This has resulted in all wages sinking over the past half century to the point of where we are now, and although this isn't a US-only phenomenon it is most stark here, with massive, possibly incurable, splintering between the highest paid and lowest paid (who knows, you likely deny the reality of that, as well; these kinds of bizarro-styled arguments like the ones you use tend to come all packaged up together in a vapid bundle).

So anyway, have fun barking up that tree denying the research into these wage discrepancies while the gap continues to shrink from male wages falling--it's not a success story by any means that our comparative wages across industries are plummeting in spending power. It doesn't require much intelligence to understand how to construct a valid, cross-analysis but it does require some thought. It's rudimentary to compare wages in a specific industry, which specific variables held constant to explicitly control for their impact on those data. The article I linked describes the methodology and, once you understand how to build a valid comparison, you can apply these principles to any article on the topic of wage discrepancy in any specific market (here's one discussing wages in tennis: https://netivist.org/debate/gender-inequality-in-sports). Again, the gap exists and no one has found otherwise. People have different explanations for why it exists and only the most laughable try to explain it away like you do with this anecdotal spiel about how women just don't have the same qualifications or work ethic as men. There has been valid arguments put forth that attempt to explain it through work leaves and choices, but even those studies can't account for all of it. One of the more compelling arguments put forth in recent decades were psychological/personality differences (which are themselves empirically defensible claims), which is something the netivist article offers support toward but doesn't explicitly control for it whereas the vetnews article explicitly tests that claim.
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
- hours worked?
- additional qualifications?

wage gap != earnings gap != unfair wage gap.

a) I do expect a person working 20 years in their field accumulating additional qualifications to earn a bit more than the guy fresh from highschool
b) I do also expect the person that works 10 overtime hours to have more money at the end of month than the person that does not.

Your link does not factor that in whatsoever, it only factors in "same field."

Btw, people in sports are usually entertainers. More people watch male soccer than female soccer. Now guess which clubs earn more money due to selling ads and merch? Prolly the male soccer team.
(No, I don't think this is necessarily always the time in sports)
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
You didn't read either study or the linked research in their endnotes in 6 minutes. Interesting that you didn't even bother to make your attempt appear legit.

You didn't even bother reading to the end of the first page:
"Because there are many factors other than gender that contribute to this wage gap—graduation year, age, board certification, additional degrees held, whether the respondent served an internship, practice type, hours worked per week, and region—we had to control for these before examining the factors that affect only the gender wage gap. When we controlled for these factors, the gender wage gap was reduced to 8.6 percent."

Anyway, that was surprisingly easy to demonstrate how little respect you treat the research. Good luck, have fun!
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
You didn't read either study or the linked research in their endnotes in 6 minutes. Interesting that you didn't even bother to make your attempt appear legit. Anyway, that was surprisingly easy to demonstrate how little respect you treat the research. Good luck, have fun!
Let's see.

"According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the national median for weekly full-time job earnings in the first quarter of 2014 was $791.1 Women had median weekly earnings of $716, while men had $867. This simple difference represents a 17.4 percent wage gap."

Fact: In 2014, male vets earned $867 a week, female vets $716. No further Info so far. While total bollocks, it could even be that females are ten times overpaid, because they work 4h a week, while the men worked 40h a week. No base to say anything so far, so let's continie.

"One hypothesis for the wage gap is..." Not interested in hypothesis, I want facts. Things that definitely show there's a wage-gap and not just an earnings gap.

"Data for this article comes from the 2015 AVMA Employment Survey. The survey, which inquired about 2014 earnings..." Interesting how it specifically says "earnings" ... I wonder why that is.

"In 2014, according to the survey, the national mean annual earnings for veterinarians who graduated in 2009 and 2013 was $74,253. Among them, women had mean annual earnings of $71,714, while men had mean annual earnings of $83,538. This difference amounts to a wage gap of 16.5 percent."
And again, let's conflate earnings with wages. Nowhere on the site so far have been "hours worked" or "qualifications" been mentioned. They're just plainly omitted. Interesting.
One can't jump from "earnings" to "wage" without knowing the hours worked. Sure, they could be similar enough - I'm not claiming otherwise.
But unless we know that value, the jump is bollocks.

"Because there are many factors other than gender that contribute to this wage gap—graduation year, age, board certification, additional degrees held, whether the respondent served an internship, practice type, hours worked per week, and region—we had to control for these before examining the factors that affect only the gender wage gap. When we controlled for these factors, the gender wage gap was reduced to 8.6 percent."
Now we're getting somewhere! Now if we only had the data to validate that.

Because my state news channel, a while ago, made a funny. "Some claim by normalizing the wage gap leaves 2% that can't be explained" .... and then continued to, for some reason, use 7% for their calculations.
So yeah, I'd like to validate that 8.6%.


Also: "Uhhh, you disagree with my link, therefore you haven't read it."
Sure mate, sure.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
"Because there are many factors other than gender that contribute to this wage gap—graduation year, age, board certification, additional degrees held, whether the respondent served an internship, practice type, hours worked per week, and region—we had to control for these before examining the factors that affect only the gender wage gap. When we controlled for these factors, the gender wage gap was reduced to 8.6 percent."
Now we're getting somewhere! Now if we only had the data to validate that.

Because my state news channel, a while ago, made a funny. "Some claim by normalizing the wage gap leaves 2% that can't be explained" .... and then continued to, for some reason, use 7% for their calculations.
So yeah, I'd like to validate that 8.6%.


Also: "Uhhh, you disagree with my link, therefore you haven't read it."
Sure mate, sure.
The evidence that you didn't read the study or its sources is that you responded to the post within 6 minutes. The references alone comprise over 51 double-sided pages...
References

1. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Median weekly earnings, 2004-2014. www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140423.htm.

2. Lirgg C. Gender differences in self-confidence in physical activity: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 1991;8:294-310.

3. Cohen L, Swim J. The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin1995 (September):876-884.

4. Guzzetti B, Williams W. Gender, text, and discussion: Examining intellectual safety in the science classroom. Journal of Research and Science Teaching 1996;33:5-20.

5. Maume D, Ruppanner L. State liberalism, female supervisors, and the gender wage gap. Social Science Research 2015;50:126-138.
Perhaps you sped read at 10 seconds per page...perhaps that explains how you completely whiffed the last paragraph explicitly controlling for the variables you claim studies like this don't control!
Self-reflection would place that error squarely on your own shoulders. If you bothered to read the study, slow down so that you can actually understand the words you're taking in. I'm confused why you're digging your heels in on this point because it just weakens everything you say to ignore the obvious conclusion that you either didn't read the studies or you didn't understand them.

Here are the claims you've presented so far:
Scholarly research doesn't control for variables, such as, time in field, qualifications, and/or hours worked
You read multiple, paywalled scholarly articles enumerating well over 50 pages in length in under six minutes
You aren't interested in hypothesis testing

I'm going to help you out because this is painful to witness you spiral like this:
Scholarly research starts with what we call a "literature review," which explores all previous, relevant research on the topic. In that section, the author(s) will explain previous hypotheses that have been tested. That's not necessarily the author(s) hypotheses (although they can be), but rather what other scientists have put forth as explanations for the phenomenon being explored. Those hypotheses are tested by constructing a null hypothesis. If the null hypothesis can't be disproven (science can never prove, only disproves, cf. research on gravity) then that lends confidence that the hypothesis is accurate. Then it's tested and retested for validity and reliability. This is all rudimentary scientific method--science 101 so to speak. Facts build into hypotheses, hypotheses build into theories, theories build into laws.

So far you've established that your opinion contradicts reams of scholarly research spanning decades, that you've ignored articles directly answering your critique of the entire body of research on the topic, and that you're completely uninterested in basic scientific methodology. It's clear to me you are wholly inept in consuming scholarly articles if you even bothered to read them in the first place. It certainly didn't help your argument to shoot back with a string of misquotes from the article that you supposedly read the first time around :/
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
So you have read the multiple, paywalled articles then. Okay.
For the given year 2014, what was the average hours worked per week for male and female veterinarians?

And if you really think, everything that calls itself science is to be trusted, you a) are comitting a logical fallacy and b) should meet some creationists, feminists and flat earthers.

Sorry, no. I do not trust something just "because it's science."
In this case, the article you linked does only show "men make more than women", without further validatable information. Why should I just go by that?
 

equinox654

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
322
I think you miss understood me. I wasn't complaining about the women at work.

I was just trying to share some of my life experiences to high light that it isn't as simple as the media makes it out to be.

For NORMAL people. Men and women are different. We have different wants, desires, interests, etc. If you follow those to their conclusion in this case you find men averaging higher income on average.
It isn't unjust... it just is.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
So you have read the multiple, paywalled articles then. Okay.
For the given year 2014, what was the average hours worked per week for male and female veterinarians?

And if you really think, everything that calls itself science is to be trusted, you a) are comitting a logical fallacy and b) should meet some creationists, feminists and flat earthers.

Sorry, no. I do not trust something just "because it's science."
In this case, the article you linked does only show "men make more than women", without further validatable information. Why should I just go by that?
If you want to your argument about a debate that is being researched to be taken into consideration, then it behooves you to read the relevant data surrounding the discussion.

Scientists don't expect people to trust us without scrutiny, which is why all scholarly articles must include lit reviews and references. That's the primary difference between the sources you consume and the sources I consume--mine are source with data and yours are source with gut feelings.

You literally stated that you aren't interested in hypothesis testing, which is the building block of the scientific method, and you also refuse to read the data sources while simultaneously claiming the author(s) don't incorporate them into their research.

The real question is how you manage to dispute a study without having read the details or its evidence?

I'm not sure why you brought a raft of pseudo-science into the conversation but it simply demonstrates, yet again, your lack of knowledge and critical thinking about the issue. Hypothesis testing is the antidote to pseudoscience. Flat-earther claims the earth is not round. Walk around it and see if you can fall off the edge! Here's an excellent article describing the scientific method and a flat earth. http://itc.gsw.edu/faculty/bcarter/physgeol/egypt/FlatEarth.pdf I really hope you read it because it might help you understand how to do proper analysis of scientific data and claims in easy to consume terms.

I have no idea why you mention creationism since it's not a scientific argument and isn't presented as such. The closest would be proponents of intelligent design and, while I haven't done any research in that space in decades, the most relevant author I remember from then was Stephen Gould if you're actually interested in a science-based approach to creationism. I read the articles and books back in the 90s so I don't feel I have to continue to stay on top of that branch of research unless something novel is pointed out to me. But I didn't simply refuse to acknowledge the literature because I believed that creationism or intelligent design was just wrong on a gut level and I certainly didn't accuse the literature of not acknowledging things I felt were important while simultaneously refusing to read the actual studies I would have been criticizing. I read the material that was presented as relevant, I read the data in support of the hypothesis, and then I formed a conclusion from all of that personal analysis. I didn't "just go by" anything; that said, consuming and analyzing scientific data is *your* responsibility. It's our responsibility to present it as accurate and neutral as possible. The fact that you can't be arsed to read it is a you problem.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
I think you miss understood me. I wasn't complaining about the women at work.

I was just trying to share some of my life experiences to high light that it isn't as simple as the media makes it out to be.

For NORMAL people. Men and women are different. We have different wants, desires, interests, etc. If you follow those to their conclusion in this case you find men averaging higher income on average.
It isn't unjust... it just is.
I didn't misunderstand you.

The first claim you make linking your co-workers' observable behavior to their wages is unsupportable unless you work in HR (which you stated that you don't, unless for some reason HR designs products in your biz).
The second claim you made was that your wife made more than you therefore there was no disparity, which is laughable on the face of it since you're not a vet so the comparison was nonsensical.

Regardless, this conversation has been politicized to the point where you can't tell ally from foe. For example, you're aligning yourself in this discussion with someone who blatantly refused to so much as acknowledge the evidence presented so far. Your position is also reminiscent of Dr. Peterson's work, but strangely your own life situation contradicts his hypothesis. At the core of his argument is that males and females approach the workspace differently; one of those salient differences is that men are geared to be the financial providers for their families whereas women default to family care. Yet, in your example your wife is the primary bread winner, which would strain your psychological stability if you believe his position that you are innately driven to be the prime wage earner for your family unit. Incidentally, the vet article I linked is testing his earlier hypothesis that wage gaps are due to personality differences. To his credit, he seems to have moved on to focusing the issue on child care, which is worth exploring (as was the personality hypothesis, but it has since been disproven). That opens a conversation about wages, in general, that I think is more important. It's a conversation similar to the one I alluded to earlier, wherein looking at male wages historically we can see an accelerated compression when women entered the trained workforce.

The basic trajectory was that women entered the workforce earning less than their identical male counterparts. That in turn compressed male wages. The more you argue that women didn't earn less than men historically for the same work the more you undermine the historical fact that women's lower wages compressed male wages over time! The problem isn't that you earn less than your wife, or vice versa, but rather that each year your spending power drops even when you receive a raise. It's one thing to consider whether a woman would have made less than you in the same position, etc. 10-20 years ago, but I don't understand why you wouldn't be more upset that you make less than *you* would have made 10-20 years ago in the same position, etc. If you hang it on innate qualities, then you have to ask yourself what the hell happened to men decades ago that endeared them to earning less than they had previously despite their innate drive to earn as much as they can for their family units?
 

Team_Slow

n00b
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
10
So you have read the multiple, paywalled articles then. Okay.
For the given year 2014, what was the average hours worked per week for male and female veterinarians?

And if you really think, everything that calls itself science is to be trusted, you a) are comitting a logical fallacy and b) should meet some creationists, feminists and flat earthers.

Sorry, no. I do not trust something just "because it's science."
In this case, the article you linked does only show "men make more than women", without further validatable information. Why should I just go by that?
Hoo, Brother. I think I'd quit while I was behind. I mean, have you listened to yourself?
 

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
270
Hoo, Brother. I think I'd quit while I was behind. I mean, have you listened to yourself?
Im not sure what you mean. It seems a sad fact that *science*, in some areas, have been so politicised that you cannot actually take any results very serious. Certainly *because science* doesnt mean what it used to. or what it should. As Sokal showed.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,656
I know a woman who came up with the entire system that a major software company uses for support over social media. It was a major project which nobody in the company knew how to implement. She did it. She worked out all the bugs and then they decided they should expand it throughout the company. Did they hire her for the position to run it? Nope they hired a guy who knew nothing about any facet of the job and had her train him.
I wish I could say this was a one off thing, but I have several female friends who've had similar things happen (though nothing as egregious as the case above). And yes, I've seen some places where women are promoted and AFAIK they're fairly compensated, but I wouldn't know unless they told me otherwise, because I've had friends that I assumed were making big bucks and then I'm at lunch with them and here the horror stories.


Im not sure what you mean. It seems a sad fact that *science*, in some areas, have been so politicised that you cannot actually take any results very serious. Certainly *because science* doesnt mean what it used to. or what it should. As Sokal showed.
No, it's just that a significant portion of the population doesn't believe science if it contradicts what they already believe. I'd love to say that only happens among conservatives, but that's not the case. Both sides ignore science that goes against their beliefs and I've seen both sides site pseudoscience to back up their beliefs.
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
Except the failure here has nothing to do with blindly trusting science. It's bullshit to frame it that way because this is an example of not blindly trusting science. This is someone blatantly refusing to read sourced scientific studies, questioning their validity, and then stating that he's not obligated to blindly trust scientists.

Not relying on blind trust is literally the only reason to have reference sections in scholarly articles. Don't allow these trolls to try and frame it within epistemology. This is as simple as someone unwilling to critique their own belief in light of contradictory evidence by covering his eyes and plugging his ears. There is nothing noble in that behavior. It's how a troll behaves and such people are a blight on otherwise intellectual societies.
 
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
622
i'll reserve judgement until nearer the release date. btw i think id ban the posters a few posts up for vearing totally off topic if i was a moderator.
 

smarenwolf

Weaksauce
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
111
Except the failure here has nothing to do with blindly trusting science. It's bullshit to frame it that way because this is an example of not blindly trusting science. This is someone blatantly refusing to read sourced scientific studies, questioning their validity, and then stating that he's not obligated to blindly trust scientists.

Not relying on blind trust is literally the only reason to have reference sections in scholarly articles. Don't allow these trolls to try and frame it within epistemology. This is as simple as someone unwilling to critique their own belief in light of contradictory evidence by covering his eyes and plugging his ears. There is nothing noble in that behavior. It's how a troll behaves and such people are a blight on otherwise intellectual societies.
What is my own belief, then? You seem to know it well enough to know it is contradictory with evidence presented.
 

Master_shake_

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
11,850
No, they don't just average across the entire labor pool. Why would you think that's how research is conducted? All you have to do is ask your wife, since she must have taken graduate level statistics and research methodology before earning her degree. It's not difficult in this day and age to find and read publicly accessible studies in any specific industry exploring this robust finding. There are no credible studies backing your assertions, only internet talking heads. I have never read a study by an actual researcher, regardless of political perspective, who argued against the wage gap although I have seen explain it in various ways. In fact, there's a relatively strong argument to be made as to certain personality traits and/or social choices that might explain the gap--but even those positions don't deny the gap exists at all. Here's one article describing the methodology used to control for a number of variables. For starters, the comparison (in your example) would be to compare vet wages across gender--not across the entire fucking labor market! http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/gender-wage-gap-veterinary-medicine-clinical-confidence-factor

One day, when you're bored from venting on a tech forum about how all the womens in your office are taking too many breaks to earn as much as you, you can take some time and effort to actually read the research instead of taking whatever you hear on the net for granted. When you do that, you'll learn that the main reason female earners' wages are more comparable to male earners' wages in recent decades is because male earners' wages have been steadily compressing since the 60s; the timeframe coincides with women taking more college courses, those courses becoming more educational rather than vocational, and those graduates entering traditionally male labor markets thereby pushing wages down, which were male wage earners at the time. This has resulted in all wages sinking over the past half century to the point of where we are now, and although this isn't a US-only phenomenon it is most stark here, with massive, possibly incurable, splintering between the highest paid and lowest paid (who knows, you likely deny the reality of that, as well; these kinds of bizarro-styled arguments like the ones you use tend to come all packaged up together in a vapid bundle).

So anyway, have fun barking up that tree denying the research into these wage discrepancies while the gap continues to shrink from male wages falling--it's not a success story by any means that our comparative wages across industries are plummeting in spending power. It doesn't require much intelligence to understand how to construct a valid, cross-analysis but it does require some thought. It's rudimentary to compare wages in a specific industry, which specific variables held constant to explicitly control for their impact on those data. The article I linked describes the methodology and, once you understand how to build a valid comparison, you can apply these principles to any article on the topic of wage discrepancy in any specific market (here's one discussing wages in tennis: https://netivist.org/debate/gender-inequality-in-sports). Again, the gap exists and no one has found otherwise. People have different explanations for why it exists and only the most laughable try to explain it away like you do with this anecdotal spiel about how women just don't have the same qualifications or work ethic as men. There has been valid arguments put forth that attempt to explain it through work leaves and choices, but even those studies can't account for all of it. One of the more compelling arguments put forth in recent decades were psychological/personality differences (which are themselves empirically defensible claims), which is something the netivist article offers support toward but doesn't explicitly control for it whereas the vetnews article explicitly tests that claim.
actually they did just take averages of every occupation.

77percentfuckery.png
 

Team_Slow

n00b
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
10
Im not sure what you mean. It seems a sad fact that *science*, in some areas, have been so politicised that you cannot actually take any results very serious. Certainly *because science* doesnt mean what it used to. or what it should. As Sokal showed.
Mope45: "This is someone blatantly refusing to read sourced scientific studies, questioning their validity, and then stating that he's not obligated to blindly trust scientists."

That's what I mean., Skyblue. Smarenwolf is not debating, he's just arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
Last edited:

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,656
SJW's are destroying everything I grew up enjoying with their flawed identity politicking.

Ghostbusters
Star Wars
Ster Trek
Marvel/DC
James Bond
MiB

Pathetically shallow people.
Your post is even more pathetic. Let's look at these series, shall we?

  1. Yesh, because GB2 was such a gem.
  2. Yeah, because man those prequels were great:rolleyes: FFS, even RotJ fell apart in the 3rd act.
  3. Star Trek was a socially progressive show from day.
    TOS had 6 movies and only 2,4 and 6 are really good.
    TNG had, I believe, 4 movies and 1 good one. TNG was also a very progressive show and guess what? The first 2 seasons were mostly bad and s7 was hit and miss.
    Voyager (the worst trek series) and Enterprise (where only the last season was decent) literally killed Trek for 5 years.
    There's been more Trek misses than hits over the last 50 years. And nobody forces you to watch Discovery with it's cooty infested actresses (assuming that's what you're talking about and I'm sure it is).
  4. Marvel? Well hate to break it to you, but the MCU is probalby the most successful franchise ever, and the audiences have plenty of men that like it just as it is.
    For all the whining about Capt. Marvel, it made over a billion dollars and got decent reviews and sold a 1.3 million blu rays in it's first 5 or 6 days on sale (can't find numbers for DVD).

  5. I've missed most of the post Nolan DC movies, but Wonder woman was fine (not a masterpiece, but it was hardly one of the worse DC movies). Aquaman was not great, but not as bad as I expected.
    Shazam was a lot of fun, IMO.
    I didn't do superman, because I grew up with the originals and there's only so much bad superman I can take, so it'd have taken stellar reviews to get me to watch any of the reboots.
  6. James Bond No idea how your childhood was ruined on this one, but people have been complaining about bond since Connery left. If you liked Roger Moore Flicks, you liked the original movies that fanboys liked to complain about.
  7. Men In Black? How are SJWs responsible for the turd that was MIB2? Sorry, but MiB3 may be shit, but it has nothing to do with SJWs. It suffers from a bad script, just like MIB2 (and GB2).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top