Rayvin

It's not that for me actually, it's just that I read the pages on there where you were trying to make cogent arguments and just despaired for them in general. It's absolutely pointless man - they know you're right. They do. It's obvious. But you're never, ever going to get them to admit it, which is why I likened it to a forum full of Wolfys earlier. The levels of delusion on there surpass RAWK, and that's saying something.

Quiff definitely has your number like, Fish

You've just moderated your views over time to make them palatable to RTG. It's a self preservation mechanism IMO. You want to wax lyrical about Rafa as much as we do, but once you do it's a slippery slope to being banned on RTG for an expletive fuelled truth bombing rant

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/10/north-korea-details-guam-strike-trump-load-of-nonsense The North Koreans have released 'plans' to fire a missile 40km off the coast of Guam - the missile route will take it over Japan. If they do that, they're getting blown to hell IMO. Having said that, they've told us they're going to do it, and have also told us that it won't be ready until mid-month, which suggests they're desperately hoping they won't have to. Thank fuck we're nowhere near this.

This is the video of Peterson the Guardian has linked to in order to 'discredit' him as a commentator. It's 2 mins long, and it's just the sanest fucking thing in the face of batshit ideology from the progressives:

Of course now we're going to get an article in the Guardian about how right wing youtube personalities are corrupting young white men. Keywords for this article will be 'white privilege', 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity'.

Yeah but to be fair, I wouldn't give an interview to him on principle. I mean, I wouldn't give an interview to the Guardian after this clusterfuck either, but Molyneux is definitely on the murky end of things. Peterson is another story altogether. I would fucking love for the Guardian to go after him

Yes I read that article as well - however, I also read the bit that suggests that he might actually be able to sue them anyway because it is not legal to sack an employee after he's raised a grievance about unequal working conditions, which is what he did. He'd get it into court, at least.

Pages 4-5 don't seem to say anything of the sort. They make the case for "Possible" non-gender bias reasons behind difficulties in HIRING women. Not, as far as I can see, any statement about women being inferior programmers. In fact, he barely mentions programming, his reasons for why the industry is impenetrable for women seem to be more general workplace issues. As for who he talked to, Molyneux was an odd choice (and I have some wary skepticism there), but Peterson is quite possibly the sanest man alive. He's so much more intelligent than these half baked SJW journalists that it's not even funny. Which is why literally none of them have taken him on. I've listened to loads of Peterson's lectures (remember, he's a tenured psychology Professor at a leading university who has taken on the Canadian justice system and last I checked had them on the ropes) and if that's where Damore got his stuff, then I don't think it discredits it. I know the Guardian has just put up an article claiming he's some kind of ring wing icon (and he is), but that's not by design. He puts forward his views and people agree with them. It doesn't make him wrong.

Until Guardiola manages a club of our level and wins something with them, I'm not prepared to call him world class Is any manager world class? There's an elite group at the top who are, in effect, born into management with a silver spoon in their mouths. Zidane is another. Mourinho you could make a good case for, I suppose.

I think the point is more why you're watering down his abilities just to advance a conversation with people whose grasp of reality disintegrates as soon as our club is mentioned, if it ever existed at all

Holy fuck Be careful in the Scottish highlands, there isn't a lot of room on the roads in places and people overtake in crazy areas.

I've just re-skim read the whole thing looking for the section where he claims that. I can't find it. Can you please cite it specifically as this may be the thing I've missed in all of this. As far as I can see, nowhere does he make the case that women are inferior programmers. He makes the case that people who don't prioritise things that programmers need to do make for poor programmers, and that the reason Google struggles to hire women into these roles is because women in general seem less predisposed to do these things. As such, he makes the case that improving organisational diversity could be achieved by changing the culture and requirements of those who do programming (in order to make it more appealing for a larger proportion of women), rather than arbitrarily hiring inferior programmers just to pick up the numbers of women. Which is such a logically sound conclusion I'm struggling to see why this has even become a controversy. My partner started off as a 3D graphics animator and was a far, far better animator than most of the male contingent in her class. She got a job and tried to make it work, but wasn't prepared to sacrifice huge portions of her life to long hours and stressful working conditions. She left and pursued other forms of graphic design. The company didn't force her out, it wasn't hostile to her as a woman, she just wasn't prepared to do what many of the men were in order to work in that environment. This is obviously anecdotal, but it does actually seem as though this experience is mapped across multiple environments. As such, we're better off asking not why women won't take these roles, but why some men will.

I read the memo, yes. The guy has been backed up in his conclusions by academics in the field and more importantly his view to my eye was more that these differences exist, and we should cater for diversity by improving organisational culture to be more support of traits typically found in women, and that doing so would allow the fostering of a more genuine form of diversity. There is nothing wrong with making a statement like this. Whether biological or through socialization, he is right about general character trait differences between genders and goes to some lengths to explain that these are general traits rather than inevitable ones. So his argument is that we can either set quotas to arbitrarily hire women into roles they aren't necessarily well suited for, which clearly isn't working very well given the class action lawsuit Google is facing over a related issue, or you can change the culture and the way the workplace values the contributions of women. Google apparently allows it's employees to send out reports like this as part of an exchange of ideas. It looks strange to me but if they allow others to do it then there's a precedent. The guy isn't a sexist on any metric that makes sense. He's not having a dig at women, and he supports his arguments with scientific studies. It's developed into a shitstorm because the science flies in the face of what the ideologues are saying. The really sad thing here is that the right is going to use this as a stick to beat the left with for fucking years. This sort of nonsense makes us look like we're scared of debate and deniers of science. As for the YouTube video, I haven't actually watched it. There's plenty of non-alt right support for him though.

I dunno why he bothers. RTG has about 3 sentient beings on the whole message board, and the others are complete morons with overt envy concerning the relative stature of Newcastle to Sunderland in almost every sense. The level of inadequacy amongst the poster base there is repellant. I checked the thread Fish is posting in and its like the Wolfy thread if you had 50 Wolfys and...well, the Fish. They're like this because Sunderland is a city with the mentality of a small town.

Unfair dismissal, I would argue. They've sacked him, IMO, because they're in the middle of being sued by 60 women over gender pay discrepencies. Nothing to do with him, but they don't need this PR catastrophe. So they'll have worked out that a $10m settlement will cost them less in the long run. Having read the memo, I don't think they have any case whatsoever. The science has been supported by academics in related fields, and the opinion it offered was constructive. From the Guardian, defamation. They are outright lying about it man. I've never seen it this blatant before...

I suspect he's going to get a substantial amount when he sues them. If I was him, I'd then move on to the Guardian.

Saw this. The SJW contingent have truly shot themselves in the foot with this one. The level of misrepresentation going on in the Guardian is utterly galling. I read the damn memo. Its thoughtful, constructive, and sets out a positive vision for company diversity. The way the Guardian have tackled it absolutely confirms to me that 'facts are no longer sacred - ideology is'.

Well I'm being a bit dramatic there. I think you could convincingly argue that the US has a cultural empire though. But in plainer terms, the global hegemon is what I mean. The US empire has been relatively short lived compared to its predecessors (if indeed we're witnessing its decline as seems likely). I'm not convinced that the Chinese position of global domination would be any longer lasting.

Ok well I agree with all of that - I interviewed a number of Chinese people for one of my dissertations who would outright state that they felt China's position in the world should be as the global dominating force. Whether they get there or not isn't necessarily inevitable though.

I think China will eventually surpass the US, but the half life for empires seems to shrink as each one goes by. I wondered to myself if the US of Eurasia might be the one that knocks China down, if Europe becomes more pro-Russian over time. Equally, you could make a case that with China investing in Africa, it could be that we see the African continent take the reigns. Or South America (although they're rising at a similar time to China, so I think it's more likely they'll be enemies to the Chinese regime in the end).

I'm really not sure this is the case you know, and I'm not fan of US Imperialism. The Chinese in particular have to be extremely careful about what they do; if they say something they can't then do, the CCP will be overthrown in a heartbeat. They almost had a national crisis on their hands after the Belgrade embassy bombing and that was two decades ago. The CCP won't want to square up against the US. If they lose, they lose China.

Not sure. It would depend on how much the 'Kims are a gift from god' rhetoric is actually important for maintaining control. If (as I suspect) no North Koreans buy such nonsense, then it's likely the military will just seize control and run the place based on the same practical actions that have been used to ensure control up until now - in which case yes, a new supreme leader. However, that leader would be one who would likely have to take a different approach to Kim vis-a-vis the US.