I wouldn't be so sure about that. Cancer researchers have plenty of time to carry out their work, stock brokers need to make correct calls at a frantic pace constantly, something that requires great foresight.

Did you try? Did you bother to ask the author of this single post for a reasonable explanation?
No? Then you censored yourself; you're oppressing yourself by dragging your own assumptions into the conversation -- that if you do ask, he would've stuck his fingers in his ears and said "I'm right, you're wrong, whitey"!

No, I disengaged from attempting to debate with someone who was not debating, instead attacker the messenger instead of the message by pulling the 'privilege' card. I have witnessed this action enough to believe that there is no point in moving forward; his mindset is made up, his view is right, mind is wrong and my disagreement is down to 'privilege'.

(It should be noted that I've had discussions long these lines, in person, many a time in the last 6 months with some guys at work - no one has once trotted out the term 'privilege' to defend their position or dismiss someone else's.)

Changing your own behavior because of this one incident is a bit premature.

Yes, well, this is just another in a long line of things which makes me think 'fuck getting involved' beyond somewhere I consider, for want of a better term, "safe".
(Yes, I'm aware of the irony.)

Let me tell you how I use to approach the world; everyone was a white male.
As insulting as that might be to some this mind set let me interact with anyone without consideration of any aspect of them. If I later found out the person was a woman, black, gay or whatever it would be noted under 'personal details' and I would carry on the same. My own white maleness might well have been a shield to some degree but it meant I interacted with the world on a level basis and to this day I operate on the assumption that, basically, anyone can do anything anyone else can.

You might have noticed some past tense in all that.
In the last few years, off the back of the 'gamers gate' and related incidents I've become more and more wary of the tribal mob mentality surrounding everything - say the wrong thing, to the wrong person and you'll be ripped to shreds by those you've enraged.

Two such examples spring to mind;
1) A well known twitter feminist posted some 3D model work online. Someone else asked her about the texturing, to which she replied. A third party then chimed in noting that in his professional opinion the texture resolution she was using was too high for the detail. Instead of replying and saying it was work in progress, or something to that effect, which would have seen the end of the matter, she instead screen grabbed it and threw this guy to the wolves because he was 'mansplaining' to her about texturing. At which point enter the twitter Mob Of Justice and I'm sure you can see where it goes. (The guy, to his credit, tried to defend himself, even pointing out he was chair of a women in games initiative, but the blood lust of the mob was too much and he got pissed off.)

2) Slightly tangentially related but you might recall around a year back when there was a degree of uproar in certain quarters because plaid was apparently the 'uniform of the game dev industry' and women were feeling uncomfortable wearing other things. I made two mistakes in this.

Firstly I dared suggest that not all women felt they must fit in, as I had seen plenty of examples of women wearing whatever they wanted (Apparently my multiple observations did not count; I got swore at and told to basically fuck off with my views because I was male).
Secondly, a sizable number of people had decided to declare themselves the fashion police and were convinced that people only wore plaid because they wanted to fit in and that they should 'have some fun' with their clothing. The presumption that they know what people want aside, the suggestion was to 'copy others to develop their style'. Now, personally, I've pretty much worn the same style of clothing for 20 years now, fashion and 'style' beyond what I like isn't really a thing, so I asked "erm, how do you develop your own style copying someone else?" - I honestly don't remember the whole reply, just that it was unduly hostile and included the phrase 'fuck off'.

There have been other examples, other incidents, and each one modifies my behaviour and actions further away from 'treat everyone equally'.
These days; I treat everyone defensively until I discover if they are male or female. If they are male then excellent, if they are female then I modify my behaviour, treat them differently, change my tone of interaction or indeed stop interacting and I will NEVER comment, good or bad, on the work of a woman in a public forum unless I have a deep and long standing relationship with that person because even a slight hint of taking blowback from a comment made with a professional mind set isn't worth the risk.

The actions of those who want equality have, in my case, driven me back from an equal mind set in to a 'treat women special' one for my own protection and peace of mind.

So, well done them I guess?

It probably got ignored (or non-debated) because no one cares to contest that.

Unfortunately it was key to everything that followed; by removing the uncontested bit and focusing on the 'chicken and egg' section alone they missed the point completely, twisted to suit their own mind set and, as we've covered, pulled the "privilege" card to dismiss everything.

All the more reason to not attempt to debate...

The stockbroker has to be very smart to do what he does, though. Go ahead and simulate day trading for a few months, see how well you would do.

Still a second-rate mind, by a very wide margin, compared to the guy/girl that cures cancer. Not to mention those actually do something incredibly useful.

But guess who's closer to the money.

"Working smart" isn't the same thing as "being smart" or even "working in a field that requires thinking." Working smart means efficiency - it means finding ways to get the same outcome for less time or effort.

Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them by hand is working hard.
Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them with a spreadsheet program is working smart.

Going back in the thread a little, it seems like the word "triggering" has been misused here. Triggering is when a trauma survivor is forced to re-experience (involuntarily) some aspect of their trauma by some small occurrence, usually innocuous. The most usually-cited examples of this are rape survivors and war veterans - I don't suppose you've ever heard of veterans having panic attacks upon hearing the sound of firecrackers? Or rape survivors becoming anxious and paranoid upon seeing someone who looks like their rapist? I know of at least one trauma survivor (who I will not identify in any way to protect their privacy) who had such a strong fight or flight response to a trigger that they picked up a two-by-four, took a swing at the nearest person to them, and then ran away screaming. Real triggering is serious business, which is why posting a "trigger warning" before rendering content containing common triggers is a good idea - it's an act of compassion and inclusion towards people who might otherwise be profoundly perturbed simply by reading it, perhaps to the point that they have to stop or even have their mental state fucked over for the next week.

Dismissing concerns over triggering as another form of whining trivializes it. I realize that some people use it as a form of whining, but that doesn't mean the concept itself is without merit, it just means that the word is misused and those people should stop that.

1) A well known twitter feminist posted some 3D model work online. Someone else asked her about the texturing, to which she replied. A third party then chimed in noting that in his professional opinion the texture resolution she was using was too high for the detail. Instead of replying and saying it was work in progress, or something to that effect, which would have seen the end of the matter, she instead screen grabbed it and threw this guy to the wolves because he was 'mansplaining' to her about texturing. At which point enter the twitter Mob Of Justice and I'm sure you can see where it goes. (The guy, to his credit, tried to defend himself, even pointing out he was chair of a women in games initiative, but the blood lust of the mob was too much and he got pissed off.)

To be fair, from your description alone (got a link to this particular tweet?), that DOES come across as mansplaining, regardless of intent (which I'm sure was benign) if it was her job to be a 3D modeller. Like it or not, condescending explanations by men directed at women come across as mansplaining even when they aren't obviously so. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the act that is labeled "mansplaining" also happens with men - I've had concepts re-explained to me by senior devs that I already know, apparently purely on the grounds that I haven't been in the industry as long as they have - but that act becomes more "politically charged" (for lack of a better term) when it happens to a woman just due to the history and context. Arguably, him being chair of a women in games initiative makes it worse, because that means he should be familiar with the issues and therefore know better.

The stockbroker has to be very smart to do what he does, though. Go ahead and simulate day trading for a few months, see how well you would do.

Still a second-rate mind, by a very wide margin, compared to the guy/girl that cures cancer. Not to mention those actually do something incredibly useful.

But guess who's closer to the money.

"Working smart" isn't the same thing as "being smart" or even "working in a field that requires thinking." Working smart means efficiency - it means finding ways to get the same outcome for less time or effort.

Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them by hand is working hard.
Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them with a spreadsheet program is working smart.

I'm pretty sure my point still stands; the researchers that cure cancer probably work much more efficiently than a stockbroker or an advertiser that sells sugar water, considering the nature, depth and scope of the problems they solve - but do they usually make the same amount of money, or even close?

The stockbroker has to be very smart to do what he does, though. Go ahead and simulate day trading for a few months, see how well you would do.

Still a second-rate mind, by a very wide margin, compared to the guy/girl that cures cancer. Not to mention those actually do something incredibly useful.

But guess who's closer to the money.

"Working smart" isn't the same thing as "being smart" or even "working in a field that requires thinking." Working smart means efficiency - it means finding ways to get the same outcome for less time or effort.

Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them by hand is working hard.
Taking a great big array of numbers and adding them with a spreadsheet program is working smart.

I'm pretty sure my point still stands; the researchers that cure cancer probably work much more efficiently than a stockbroker or an advertiser that sells sugar water, considering the nature, depth and scope of the problems they solve - but do they usually make the same amount of money, or even close?

What is your metric, here, and how did you derive it? We can't have a meaningful comparison unless we have a metric that applies meaningfully to all cases, or some equivalence between metrics for each. Cancer researchers, stockbrokers, and advertisers perform very different kinds of work.

Supposedly, money is supposed to represent the value of labor; therefore, in an ideal world, an individual would get paid according to the value of their labor as an individual. One could argue that we don't currently have this ideal, either, but I suggest that "provide value" is better advice than both "work hard" AND "work smart" with the way things really work. It also provides the explanation for why some individuals receive lower pay despite rendering the same services as other individuals - those individuals are considered less valuable, as individuals, by those in control of the money.

So, to tie this back into the thread: when a judgment of people of a certain identity class becomes sufficiently ingrained in society that individuals unconsciously follow that judgment, and said judgment causes one to be perceived as more valuable, then one is benefiting from "privilege."

A well known twitter feminist posted some 3D model work online. Someone else asked her about the texturing, to which she replied. A third party then chimed in noting that in his professional opinion the texture resolution she was using was too high for the detail. Instead of replying and saying it was work in progress, or something to that effect, which would have seen the end of the matter, she instead screen grabbed it and threw this guy to the wolves because he was 'mansplaining' to her about texturing

Do you realize that mocking an artist for having the texture in their source art in "too high resolution" is just the most noob thing there can be (from a engineer stand of view)???? A few packs of wolfes on that blasphemy, she was right.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Cancer researchers have plenty of time to carry out their work, stock brokers need to make correct calls at a frantic pace constantly, something that requires great foresight.

The most famous retiring oncologists are ringing on bells, saying that since 50s of 20th century, they are only providing radiating "chemotherapies" to cancer growth pantients and nothing has moved front ever since! They are shouting to faces around- something is too wrong with most fatal and common desease and its treatment!

Who cares? If a patient miss his chemo he will be droped out of hospitality for breaking law.

While it is documented that metastasing cancers get gone by smoking strong marihuana. I am no conspiracy boytoy, but even in parliament of czech republic there were law-givers fighting and beating each other in the very parliament to allow marihuana treatment even for pre-teen patients finaly, after the results with adults. (the not reduced psychadelic full-scale weed).

The claims of privilege and oppression from different people make me laugh myself to tears. Claims of either one loses all meaning when the people doing the whining are going to top-notch universities or from extremely well off families. That would be like Donald Trump Jr. taking to the news and claiming a set race or group had more privilege than him.

Let's not forget, apparently being a male gamer makes us have invisible benefits (25 no less):

While it is documented that metastasing cancers get gone by smoking strong marihuana. I am no conspiracy boytoy, but even in parliament of czech republic there were law-givers fighting and beating each other in the very parliament to allow marihuana treatment even for pre-teen patients finaly, after the results with adults. (the not reduced psychadelic full-scale weed).

This is a danger lie because it's been proven wrong, and it gives people false hope.

I'm not anti-legalization, either.

Let's not forget, apparently being a male gamer makes us have invisible benefits (25 no less):

#23: "As a male playing multiplayer games, I can be pretty sure that conversations between other players will not focus on speculation about my attractiveness or sexual availability in real life."

I've had that happen to me. :lol:

In an ORPG I was helping develop/moderate, two female gamers (who I had chatted with multiple times, and loosely got to know) were speculating in global chat about how skillful I'd be in bed with them. :huh:

I felt rather awkward, being 16 at the time. Thankfully for the self-esteem of my 16 yo self, they were debating it in my favor.
Multiple gamers in different communities, male and female, have speculated on my attractiveness as well. :rolleyes:

Several times the topic of sex was brought up by the females (who were a minority - 10% of the population). My assumption was, they were bringing up the subject just to fit in and "hang with the guys", despite most of the other players not talking about sex at all.

So I guess, one disadvantage I don't have, is, "As a male, if I bring up the topic of sex [which I don't], the opposite gender doesn't second-guess whether I'm just talking about sex just to fit in with them." / "As a male, I don't have to talk crude or fake-laugh at crude jokes just to fit in.".

In a different game I played for several hours just to check it out, two females were practically tripping over each other trying to twink my newbie character and give me gaming advice (something that if gender-swapped would be taken as demeaning). That was confusing to me. I guess that particular community had a high female-to-male ratio, or something, being a social-focused role-play ORPG.