Rayvin

Grim. I get what you're saying though. Ideologies have played such a big part in mobilising people to follow such men that you just kind of assume that those at the top believe them too. In which case, is the answer that we actually do need an ideology, but one that can survive the risk of being co-opted by those in power?

Just reading that article, this struck me: "But more than half of the carbon humanity has exhaled into the atmosphere in its entire history has been emitted in just the past three decades; since the end of World War II, the figure is 85 percent. Which means that, in the length of a single generation, global warming has brought us to the brink of planetary catastrophe, and that the story of the industrial world’s kamikaze mission is also the story of a single lifetime." That generation has a lot to answer for. Almost fucking everything, in fact.

See, Trump is just planning to cancel that out with Nuclear winter. Sorted. Have to say, that article makes grim reading... Elon Musk needs to get a fucking move on.

If true, it would support your view on the deep state control I suppose. Current policy at Google would be entirely at odds with the Trump regime so it must be coming from somewhere else - which would mean political power has left the arena of elected officials - or that Obama and the Clintons were just on the same page. Not sure I'm quite ready to believe that, but it's a compelling case nonetheless. To what end though? Can't just be power and control, they already have that. They're never going to have direct control over foreign peoples, the only vehicle for achieving such a thing would be a far more politically significant UN. If it's money then I guess I get it, but again, aren't these people already the richest individuals alive, by and large?

Unlikely without a global war, yes. Well, for now anyway. In actual fact, I suspect isolationism would make global conflict far more likely. If this kicks off and the rest of the world doesn't descend into chaos, it's probably globalisation that we'll have to thank for that, for all its faults. Also accept that having children will make you more concerned about this. I'm more of the view that if this is going to happen, I hope I'm nuked in the early stages

My view on Trump was that, as an isolationist in rhetoric, he wouldn't do this shit. Clearly I was wrong about that. I think it highly unlikely a nuclear war would kick off with Hillary at the helm, although I suspect she'd still have bloodied her hands considerably. I don't think this will end up in a nuclear war though, I think the yanks could do this without nukes. And I don't think it's guaranteed that the rest of the world would suddenly kick off if NK and the US come to blows. Would Putin fancy his chances against Europe? I'm not sure Russia has that particular fight in them you know, the EU has the largest military in the world if considered to be a single entity. He'll not be blind to that. But hey, maybe another world war would sort out a few problems as well. The economy would be sorted and population levels would decline - we'd probably also get One World Government at the other end of it to ensure that 'nothing like this can happen ever again'. Assuming the allies won, that is.

Ok Parky, that article is massive. Can you give me an abstract? In related news, Google has just demonetised right wing commentators on YouTube, has suspended (and then reinstated) Jordan Peterson's Google account, and Twitter has suspended Sargon's account. Subtle stuff Looks like they're really going for the jugular this time.

Yeah, the thing is, the ones who engage with you are all cunts. The intelligent ones (and there are some) are normally circulating in their politics forums or on issues like finances as you say. The ones you argue with, if you met them irl, you'd be trying to get away from as soon as possible for fear that whatever is wrong with them is contagious.

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.