The fact that there are only 14 people on that list, doesn't give you pause for thought?

The pause for thought it gives me is, "wow, given the odds against them they must have really kicked a** to have made such an impression. Let's hold them up as inspiring examples so we can get more!"

I think there's something to the idea that we will achieve that which we are focused on. If we become solely focused on history as a series of injustices that demand atonement, I suspect we won't be able to help create more injustice. And we will rationalize it as balancing the scales until we generate enough resistance that the pendulum swings back. That would be catastrophic. (Look only to the forces unravelling the 1965 Voter's Rights Act if you think this is hyperbolic conjecture. The pendulum CAN swing back.)

If we, however, use history as a guide for how to be better people, not shying away from the harsh realities of the past but also not wallowing in them in reactive shame, we have a much better chance to get to a much better place.

It's time to retake Western Civilization from the mentally ill people in authority who pander to the Feminist mentally ill.

How do you propose to retake that which is not solely yours in the first place, but rather the collective synthesis of millions of minds and hundreds of ideas arising over centuries? This sentiment is pablum, a slogan to comfort defeated culture warriors who lost because they didn't even understand the terms of the fight.

Ideologies don't arise in a vacuum, they arise to meet deficiencies with then existing ideologies. Any civilization powered by ideologies which cannot guarantee the rights of all of its people or which tolerates gross inequities is BEGGING for new ideologies to sweep in. The robber baron abuses of the Gilded Age were the kindling for unions. The unfulfilled promise of "all men created equal" was the kindling for Civil Rights. Taking civilization back to some lofty place in the past would just be asking to recreate the initial conditions which gave rise to the ideologies you oppose in the first place.

If we want something better, it will have to look like something that moves all of us forward. And that definitely won't happen by declaring people mentally ill. They'll simply label you the same and dismiss you into oblivion because your ideas reek of the failures of the past.

There's any excuse to defend the traitor establishment, I suppose.

There's any excuse to defend the traitor establishment, I suppose.

Yes, we should definitely listen to stellar examples of intellect like Alex Jones instead :rolleyes:

There's any excuse to defend the traitor establishment, I suppose.

I'm not sure what that means ^^^, but just seems too, uh, perfectly left-wing stereotype of a right-wing.

If we become solely focused on history as a series of injustices that demand atonement, I suspect we won't be able to help create more injustice.

Do we really want to be able to create more injustice? :P
(obviously that was a typo - but an amusing one)

Serious questions though:
- What percentage of programmers are females currently? 20-30%?
- Is a lack of females in programming harmful to the world at large or harmful to females?
- What percentage does it need to be before we eradicate any harmful effects from a lack of gender diversity? Is 30% not enough to gain the benefits of diversity?
- Are a lack of females in programming fields due to lack of interest or hiring discrimination?
- If disinterest, is female disinterest in programming biological, or cultural, or both? If both, is it predominately biological, or predominately cultural?
- If discrimination, who is doing the discrimination - corporations, governments, educators, men, women, or what?

...because if we're talking female discrimination, rather than, say, racial discrimination, it looks to me like females aren't in programming because of choice, and it looks like that choice is mostly biological, but partly cultural, and partly presentational - how programming is marketed to kids.

If true discrimination exists in a specific career (and it's a discrimination that doesn't make sense) that actively stop women from entering, then we should absolutely address it. But it also seems like efforts to artificially bring every possible career to a perfect 50:50 male-to-female ratio is predominately driven by political philosophies. 'We should just do it because it sounds good on paper' (because equality = uniformity?). Everyone, ideally, should have the opportunity to go into the career that they'd prefer (if they can meet the requirements of it - which, when it comes to programming, females can do excellently), but if we achieved such opportunity, and everyone still chose to join specific careers in a weird way - like the average female preferring biology fields over programming, or police forces stacked with red-haired people, should we try to force balanced ratios?

I guess my question is, what tests can we do to verify the causes of the disparities we see, what tests can we do to verify the harm (from lack of _perfect_ diversity) we postulate, and what tests can we do to prove that the courses of action liberals typically push are actually beneficial long-term?

By 'tests' I mean, we have a theory, and we use that theory to make predictions, and then we look to see if those predictions actually pan out, rather than seeing data and interpreting that data to fit our existing stances. I'm sure many people are already working on that, so this is a genuine question not only a rhetorical one.

I am Left in a lot of issues and Right on other points. Calling me Left or Right is ignorant.

I am a PATRIOT. I am TOP and CENTER.

But it also seems like efforts to artificially bring every possible career to a perfect 50:50 male-to-female ratio is predominately driven by political philosophies

Hang on... Apart from a couple of folks on the other side of the debate throwing up strawmen, I don't think anyone has proposed that.

The issue is one of equality in opportunity, not Harrison Bergeron-style enforced equality.

Repeated studies have shown that male interviewers exhibit implicit bias against female candidates, even male interviewers who claim to be pro women in the workplace. Women account for just 18% of Computer Science degrees, despite the fact that they accounted for 37% in 1985. Of those who take the Calculus AP exam, 48% are women, but of those who take the AP Computer Science exam, only 18% are women.

If you can look at all that data, and still honestly believe that there's no such thing as gender bias (let alone, racism) in the tech field... Well, I don't think we are going reach agreement on much of anything in that case.

We live in a very artificial civilization. I believe that it is only increasing because of the spread of socialism.

Most college students here in the Midwest seem to be women. I am just fine with that.

Most kids who play video games seem to be boys. I am just fine with that, too.

Trying to artificially make the ratio equal is bound to create other injustices.

The term and nature:- feminism can't be eradicated.

Feminism means something. Masculism means something. And these are governed by hormones (note feminism doesn't mean all women as masculism also doesn't mean all men)

In simple terms it means there are things feminism tends to prefer. And these are certain cultures and certain ways of things , and also brains wired in certain way. Tend to be softer in nature and less aggressive. This filters into academics. While you cannot group courses and professions into soft and aggressive, there are certain professions and courses that feminism would spike high on, on a graph and spike low on, on the same graph. Likewise masculism would spike high on certain courses and professions on the same graph and spike low on other things. I know politically correct over zealous ones would never agree with this, so there is no need to break my neck trying to outline this

Have you ever wonder why in all countries male prisoners population is always almost at least double female prisoners population?(too much in a rush now to dig out citations, but this is true) Is that now discrimination against men? Its the same hormones at play here. It affects almost everything.

Having said that, there was genuine naive-ness and error of judgments up to the 1950s, where in many western countries women were not allowed to study certain courses (including Mathematics) in universities. As you would notice I termed this naive-ness and error of judgement rather than discrimination, because with the same judgement women were not allowed to fight in the front line during ww1 and ww2. But the men that fought suffered terrible hardship, severe injuries and ofcourse deaths in large numbers. If this were real discrimination (rather than error of judgement) they would send more women to fight in the front lines so to make them surfer and save the men for good living, and enjoying life

In modern days though - Professional and CS degree discrimination against women does exist, massively in some countries. But in most western countries it doesn't exist. The residual we notice is as much as the discrimination against men in other professions. The rest is down to feminine choice

I have to say, I'll never stop going "WTF" when I hear the term "Cultural Marxism". And I vote for the Communist Party back home.


AFAIK, Marxism is all about studying and trying to change the economy(the "base"), which is supposed to shape things like culture/religion/etc(the "superstructure").

What on earth *do* they mean by "cultural Marxism"? Is it, like "homos and lefties are taking over the media"?