Rayvin

Cheers man...

Credit where due there for ewerk, that's a comprehensive take down of CT

Struggling a bit with that one, which of my many personality quirks is that poking fun at?

On loan until the end of the season, maybe. Permanent signings doubtful given that there's no real reason to believe that Rafa will be here next season.

Schurrle would be fucking awesome. No idea why he would join but would gladly have him. Got a great goal against Brazil iirc.

I think the Alt-Right have picked up select bits of what he says as part of a fightback against 3rd wave feminism. But I don't think that's his fault and I don't think he's setting out to create that impact. He adds intellectual underpinnings to some of the things they want, but the fact may be that the rest of us have to deal with that if the arguments make sense - and simply trying to ignore what he says makes us look intellectually dishonest. The thing that really bothers me about this is that I don't listen to what he says for his 'takedowns' of 3rd wave feminism. Anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in some of that shite, and the importance of some of the rest - he is actually really useful to listen to because he has a good psychological understanding of men, and is talking openly about it without having to hide behind the PC stuff. For instance, he doesn't harp on about toxic masculinity - a concept invented by feminists to make men feel bad about being men. He has a positive message rather than a negative one. So yeah, people listen to him. Many of those people are angry - but I'd far rather they were listening to an intellectual whose heart is in the right place than people like the Alt Right.

Aye but that's what the narrative requires at the end of the day. Just take heart in the fact that public trust in the media is down at the low 30%s because of shit like this

Inevitable unfortunately. The Alt Right have claimed this as a victory for them of sorts, so you're going to get the associated fuckwits making arses of themselves. Doesn't change anything that was said though. I imagine we'll get an op piece in the Guardian in the next few days about regulating YouTube and the unacceptable consequences of letting people challenge the narrative.

The Twitter thing is brilliant And I agree on equal opportunity, and that time and energy should be invested into this above all else. But remember that we have far more women than men at university now, and the pay gap between men and women under 30 favours women: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds So maybe it's already in the post, and that the main issue really was opportunity.

I don't only believe what he tells me, but he has more credibility than anyone I've seen discussing these things in the media or, with respect, you I would believe other tenured professors with similarly robust arguments as well. And in answer to your final question - no it isn't. You've worked hard to get to where you are, I assume. Why should you be overlooked in place of someone less qualified to do the job? If you are, what is the point in you working hard at all?

Brilliant story.

Another point here - these things are the way they are, you could argue, because of the existence of these hyper competitive, work focused, quite possibly psychotic men. If you replace them with competent but ultimately not as driven or effective women - they're just going to go, find another company, or set something up on their own, and outcompete the original businesses. They will naturally just end up at the top. Because they work harder than everyone else. I mean what do you suggest we do about them? Cos the problem is that they exist, IMO.

I am a man though, and given that your comment was about how men perceive women, I think I'm reasonably well placed to comment? Where has this notion that I am a feminist come from? I'm egalitarian. I don't know tbh, you seem to believe that risk aversion is a feminine trait which isn't something Peterson has cited and so while I 'expect' it to be true, I can't say for sure that it is. So in answer, would it have averted the financial crisis? Given that it started in the US, I expect no. If more feminine traits were used in the US? Maybe...? But perhaps all associated economies would be far weaker. The point is we just don't know. The point is also that nothing is stopping anyone from trying this, except, I would argue, that it is likely to make the firms in question less competitive. Or at least that is how it is perceived.

This is a concept straight from the Guardian and it's not an experience I've recognised personally. My boss is a man and I would have always described him as overly controlling, paranoid and nagging. I've not had a female boss so I can't compare there. But sure, if it's a socially produced problem, then deal with it. Doesn't mean there is prejudice in salary offers though.

Right, but why? I mean for one thing, it could well make our businesses less competitive in the global market place - we don't know that it won't. He provides another example in one of his YT videos for this. If you're a law firm and you're utilising 'reasonable' working hours that support a healthy work life balance, then you're going to be hopelessly outcompeted by a similar firm in another country that just doesn't give a shit and just wants the contract you're bidding for irrespective of what their employees have to do to get it. Secondly, if there is a lot of evidence to suggest that many highly qualified women simply aren't prepared to put the hours in, as he appears to suggest, because they value a plethora of other things - and there are men who are - are you suggesting that subpar and less work driven women be put into positions ahead of men who work far harder? That doesn't sound like equality to me. It sounds like social engineering for the purpose of just 'looking like we've got this right'.

Yeah but what is stopping anyone from making a bank that operates like that? I think he made this point. The opportunity to do so is there, and that is equality. Also, I think his point was more that 'people' have to be less agreeable to make it. And that women are in general more agreeable. The world is what it is. How much 'tyrannical social pressure' do we apply in pursuit of something that by all accounts doesn't even seem to make very many people happy anyway? Women being less happy now than they were 50 years ago, and all.

BTW, his lectures on YT are pretty heavy going, but there are a number of 'parasite' channels which break his stuff down into smaller chunks of relevant information. Worth looking into.

He did answer that though, didn't he? Or at least he tried to before she took him away on another tangent. The market demands what it demands. If it doesn't demand feminine traits, what can anyone do about it? On the other stuff, of course he didn't cite anything, it was an interview. But he's a tenured professor at Toronto University who has been published in many reputable journals. He will have sources. And why would prejudice rank high? If you could, as an employer, hire a woman, who is equal to men in the same field, and for 75% of the wage - you'd do that every time. I don't know where this bizarre idea that shareholders and fatcats are so devoted to the 'boys club' notion that they're prepared to sacrifice their own income comes from. Only 7 women in FTSE 100 companies - she said that herself. If competent women were being paid less for because of prejudice, surely the FTSE 100 would be full of them!

Yes we do, and that was a very real concern for me too - up until Trump. Trump is not as smart, charismatic, or remotely competent as Hitler. If we absolutely have to have a "far right" President, then I would pick someone as fucking useless as Trump every time. Far better than someone competent. And anyone competent who could come along after this, now has to also explain away the right's failure under Trump. He's soiled them.

I have a 6 month notice period.. I dunno, how many businesses would be prepared to wait for that? I have a side business anyway, I'll be fine.

I set up systems that run themselves, check on them through a database driven dashboard that shows me by numbers if anything is falling over, and otherwise delegate lots. Basically I made my laziness into an efficiency But tbh, it's boring now. I handed my notice in at the start of the year so I'll be looking for a new challenge in the summer.

I think it's just more visible, not in the ascendancy. But agree to disagree I guess.

I just go into my bosses office and tell him that a number of circumstances have changed, or that the company achieved x,y,z this year, and justify the increase. Do I get paid less than the other directors? Definitely. I'm the only non-equity holding member of the board, and also about 15 years their junior. But that's life. I have an experience deficit compared to them. Even though I run the whole business

Ah but you're actually saying the same thing as I was then. You're saying that they voted Trump to avoid an establishment candidate. If the Democrats put someone like Hillary forward again they're taking a huge risk, but actually I still think they'd win as Trump is just 'off the map' shit at this. But what you're basically saying is that the Democrats aren't listening to the WWC, and will continue to receive backlash for as long as they do. And I agree. But that's not a sign that the right wing is in ascendancy. It's a sign that the centre is fucking hopeless and that the left is shut out.