I felt it important to do a follow up to my previous post on the wage gap. While I did cover several important points in regards to the wage gap, I failed to do two crucial things: first, I did not make it clear that the contention with the wage gap from feminists is that its origins are found in sexist discrimination rather than market forces. That is to say that employers willfully pay women less simply for lacking a Y-chromosome. It seems to me a terrible reason to pay women less and has been pointed out that if such a state existed most if not all employers would hire only women simply to save on labour costs.
Second, and this point was only briefly eluded to previously, was how the wage gap is earned. I wish to briefly elaborate on this point.
The wage gap does exist in aggregate. When you break down all the way to hours worked within specializations of already specialized professions, you see the wage gap almost wholly disappear. But not fully. Is this the minor contribution of sexism which persists in our workplaces? No, and far from it. The data is still not perfect, specifically on the points of hours worked. Almost all reviews of data from workplaces consider full-time workers those who work 35 hours per work or more, but does not cap full-time wage review relative to working only 35 hours. To be clear, this means, as I have already states previous, that two people paid the same for the same job could earn different paycheques because one of them worked additional hours.
Those extra hours are one of the major sources of where the wage gap comes in, even when we look at pay differences within professions. Men overwhelmingly work more than women, which is the driver behind the pay differences. In a more macro sense, men take on far more dangerous jobs where they are significantly more compensated. A man felling trees in northern British Columbia is going to make significantly more money than a man working equal hours in an air conditioned call center 20 minutes from his home in Seattle, Washington. Yet, the lumberjack is more likely to die or be injured on the job than the call center clerk.
The fact that men work dangerous jobs far from home for more hours with greatly varied start and finish times is overlooked when we talk about the gender wage gap. When we take it into account, I am left with one conclusion: the wage gap does exist and men have earned it.
If women want to catch up to men, then they can fell trees, learn to do petroleum field work with welding, electrical, or plumbing. Women can go off and pull oil out of the ground or wade into filth to solve water purification problems. Working retail or support roles does not pay as well as field work in mining or long haul trucking. Comfort is sacrificed for pay and men are more willing to accept that. The only barrier to women in this free society is themselves. They can take on the challenges of of dangerous work, die more frequently on the job, and be further from home. Once the whining brigade of wage gap conspiracy theorists accept this, the debate will be over.
Men have earned the wage gap. It is up to women to look at the sacrifices which men take to earn their money and understand that to close or end the gap they must be willing to do the same. Until the time comes when a vast number of women are willing to give up comfort in the name of pay we will continue to see the gender wage gap. Earn your way to solving it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Post 59 -- Wage gap game? It's just that.
The wage gap is that pesky topic which clings to the minds of feminists and concerned feminist allies everywhere. It has a profound impact on the capitalistic, money equals power minds of the cultural kamikazes of today. In any debate about gender, about women, about sexual expression, about fiscal policy, and--as I learned yesterday while listening to NPR--even discussions about homelessness (a problem that is disproportionately male, with between 60 and 85% of homeless populations being male, depending on the municipality) include the topic about the wage gap.
Let me define my best understanding of the talking point which is the wage gap. This isn't going to be someone else's or some dictionary-esque statement on it. This definition is mine from my research and exposure to the topic.
The modern wage gap is defined by the ratio of annual earnings between men and women. It is frequently expressed as the percentage women earn as compared to men or the value of a woman's dollar earned to a man's dollar earned. As such, we hear the statement, "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" or "women are paid 23% less than men for the same work."
Before I unpack this (again), I want to define a few more parameters which make up both the presented stat and the rationale behind it. Firstly, the expression paid is used interchangeably with earned. Paid means something entirely different than earned, but the emotionally salient impact of the difference is central to the conveyance of the wage gap myth. Paid, in its most simple definition from various organizations and the Department of Labor means what an individual is compensated for their work by a defined time segment (e.g., weekly salary or hourly). Earned, however, is the general term to describe the end product compensation. Allow a brief example to clarify the difference:
Secondly, the difference reported between men and women is in aggregate. That is, the calculation is done by totaling the money earned by all full-time women and dividing that by the money earned by all full-time men. There is no nuance into the type of work, tenure, education, or even hours (as "full-time worker" is defined as labouers who worked for at least 40 hours per work).
The wage gap is a myth. It should be clear by my additional definitions which are used in the argument for the gap to begin with, but there is more to add. To take the issues in the order given, being paid differently for the same work (assuming same qualifications) is illegal. It is illegal in the United States, in Canada, in Britain, in Germany, and in most other western democracies. The risk to employers, big or small, public or private, to willfully pay women less simply because they are women is too great a liability. The litigious nature of the United States would make it impossible for employers to successfully get away with such an injustice. The amount of technology which goes into monitoring hours and pay, such as Kronos or ADP, would leave a conclusive paper trail whereby even a mediocre lawyer would successful bring suit on behalf of the female employee against her employer.
When we clearly and willfully separate paid with earned we see the inherent problem at the core of the myth. If Sally and Eric work the same job with the same pay and work the same hours then Sally and Eric will earn the same. However, if Sally and Eric are paid the same but Eric works additional hours, then Eric will have earned more than Sally. When looked at in aggregate, this crucial point is lost. In 2014, men worked 57% of the 272,662,680,000 labour hours. Of all full-time workers, men worked 8.4 hours a day on average, while women worked 7.8. If we assume that men and women occupy jobs equally and are all paid equally, then the pay gap would be a neat 14% on the mere fact that men work more than women.
The completed and revised numbers for 2013 indicate women made "82 percent of the median weekly earnings of a male full-time or salaried worker." So, not only do supporters of the wage gap gloss over hours worked, the '77 cents on the dollar' point is also fallacious. It should be added that the maxim 'do not attribute malice to which can be best explained by stupidity' works in this case; most likely, supporters of the wage gap are recycling numbers of several years ago, rather than staying up to date. Probably because being up to date would also mean exposing themselves to additional reasons why the wage gap is a myth.
Obfuscated from the general transmission of the wage gap is the distribution of jobs. Men tend to occupy jobs which are far more dangerous, have more varied hours (both by day and by schedule), and are further from home. Such jobs provide greater compensation and lead to a widening of aggregate earnings for men over women. Moreover, variables such as education and tenure are also scrubbed from message. When we control the essential variables the gap shrinks to less than 2%, with the final discrepancy found in over-time hours worked and performance bonuses. Consider that many jobs pay additional compensation for over-time hours at a rate of time-and-a-half, effectively bumping the approximately 104 additional yearly hours worked by men over women to 156 hours of at-pay compensation*.
Now that I have made it clear how the wage gap game is played and how it is an unabashed myth perpetuated by ignorant or malevolent individuals, I want to turn my attention to why we should be against equal pay in all cases. Not in a general sense, but in specific, individual by individual understanding of it. I want to use you, my dear reader, as the example.
Most of us agree that equal work deserves equal pay. But what of the variables such as education, tenure, an output? Let us say that you work a job which does not require an education but that having a specific education significantly helps you perform your duties. Let us now say you have such a job and also possess an education complimentary to, though not required of, the job. You have a co-worker to whom you share an identical role, title, and job description. This job is hourly. Your education allows you to consistently out perform your co-worker. Do you think you deserve to be paid the same as your less qualified co-worker? If you said 'no', then you understand where my argument against equal pay comes from.
To take this point further, I wish to impress upon you the importance of experience. Again, let us say you have an hourly paid job to which you have worked at for 10 years. You have a new co-worker who has the identical title and job description as you. Do you think you should be paid the same as your new co-worker? If you say 'yes' because you believe equal work deserves equal pay, then you fail to see the impact which experience plays on one's ability to perform their job. You have invested and committed yourself for 10 years to a company and role, you deserve to be appropriately compensated for that work.
I want to make it abundantly clear the role which personal qualifications and tenure ought to play in compensation. Those who perform better and are more qualified deserve to be better compensated than those who perform less and are less qualified. This factor does not concern itself with gender, race, or any of the other myriad identifiers which exist. This philosophy should be championed by every worker in some form. Grid systems, tier systems, set annual increases, or any other method which rewards both tenure or some form of improved work output rewards experience and tenure.
Further, the role which negotiating plays in starting compensation should not be overlooked. Negotiating is not restricted to men alone. In fact, and I am certain there are feminists out there who agree with me, women should be doing more for themselves to ensure they, as individuals, are being appropriately compensated. Document your work ethic and build rapport with your co-workers. Challenge your employer over your compensation using the evidence you have gathered about your worth to the company. Rarely will one by removed for doing so, making this a low-risk attempt to achieve better recognition for the work you perform.
So, does the wage gap exist? Absolutely not. Or, at least, not in the way it is so lazily conveyed to us. Even if it did, it would be because men work more dangerous jobs, men work more hours, and women, given a free society which allows them to choose to pursue their own passions and interests, work safer, less harmful jobs. The wage gap myth amounts to an attempt to obliterate equality of opportunity and replace virtues such as work ethic, commitment, and stalwart perseverance with equality of outcome. Where those who work hard earn as much as those who barely show up, those who are more learned are compensated the same as those who are willfully ignorant, and those who are qualified are paid equally to those are couldn't be bothered to try.
By fighting equality of outcome, you are fighting for yourself and the belief that the individual is more important than some loose collective. That your work ethic, commitment, and drive ought to be rewarded and not overlooked to accommodate another who lacks such moral character. The wage gap is not real and we should be damn happy that it isn't.
Talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
* From BLS 2014 statistics, full-time men worked 8.4 per day. Full-time does mean 35 or more hours per work in this publication, but many labour laws define overtime as greater than 8 hours per day, but this varies by state. The publication lists men as working 52 minutes more than women, but focusing on the time over the standard 8 hour day, we have men working 2 additional hours a week. This adds to 104 additional hours worked in the year, on average. Compensation for overtimes is assumed to be time-and-a-half (1.5x), multiplying the 104 overtime hours to 156 compensation hours. This is to show how rapidly a gap can grow between pay and earnings when a labourer works overtime hours and further clarifies why there is an aggregate difference between men and women.
Let me define my best understanding of the talking point which is the wage gap. This isn't going to be someone else's or some dictionary-esque statement on it. This definition is mine from my research and exposure to the topic.
The modern wage gap is defined by the ratio of annual earnings between men and women. It is frequently expressed as the percentage women earn as compared to men or the value of a woman's dollar earned to a man's dollar earned. As such, we hear the statement, "women earn 77 cents on the dollar" or "women are paid 23% less than men for the same work."
Before I unpack this (again), I want to define a few more parameters which make up both the presented stat and the rationale behind it. Firstly, the expression paid is used interchangeably with earned. Paid means something entirely different than earned, but the emotionally salient impact of the difference is central to the conveyance of the wage gap myth. Paid, in its most simple definition from various organizations and the Department of Labor means what an individual is compensated for their work by a defined time segment (e.g., weekly salary or hourly). Earned, however, is the general term to describe the end product compensation. Allow a brief example to clarify the difference:
I am paid $10.00 an hour. I worked 40 hours this past week. I earned $400.00 this past week.This example illustrates the difference between paid and earned by showing pay as the rate of compensation and earnings as being the accumulated compensation for the work done.
Secondly, the difference reported between men and women is in aggregate. That is, the calculation is done by totaling the money earned by all full-time women and dividing that by the money earned by all full-time men. There is no nuance into the type of work, tenure, education, or even hours (as "full-time worker" is defined as labouers who worked for at least 40 hours per work).
The wage gap is a myth. It should be clear by my additional definitions which are used in the argument for the gap to begin with, but there is more to add. To take the issues in the order given, being paid differently for the same work (assuming same qualifications) is illegal. It is illegal in the United States, in Canada, in Britain, in Germany, and in most other western democracies. The risk to employers, big or small, public or private, to willfully pay women less simply because they are women is too great a liability. The litigious nature of the United States would make it impossible for employers to successfully get away with such an injustice. The amount of technology which goes into monitoring hours and pay, such as Kronos or ADP, would leave a conclusive paper trail whereby even a mediocre lawyer would successful bring suit on behalf of the female employee against her employer.
When we clearly and willfully separate paid with earned we see the inherent problem at the core of the myth. If Sally and Eric work the same job with the same pay and work the same hours then Sally and Eric will earn the same. However, if Sally and Eric are paid the same but Eric works additional hours, then Eric will have earned more than Sally. When looked at in aggregate, this crucial point is lost. In 2014, men worked 57% of the 272,662,680,000 labour hours. Of all full-time workers, men worked 8.4 hours a day on average, while women worked 7.8. If we assume that men and women occupy jobs equally and are all paid equally, then the pay gap would be a neat 14% on the mere fact that men work more than women.
The completed and revised numbers for 2013 indicate women made "82 percent of the median weekly earnings of a male full-time or salaried worker." So, not only do supporters of the wage gap gloss over hours worked, the '77 cents on the dollar' point is also fallacious. It should be added that the maxim 'do not attribute malice to which can be best explained by stupidity' works in this case; most likely, supporters of the wage gap are recycling numbers of several years ago, rather than staying up to date. Probably because being up to date would also mean exposing themselves to additional reasons why the wage gap is a myth.
Obfuscated from the general transmission of the wage gap is the distribution of jobs. Men tend to occupy jobs which are far more dangerous, have more varied hours (both by day and by schedule), and are further from home. Such jobs provide greater compensation and lead to a widening of aggregate earnings for men over women. Moreover, variables such as education and tenure are also scrubbed from message. When we control the essential variables the gap shrinks to less than 2%, with the final discrepancy found in over-time hours worked and performance bonuses. Consider that many jobs pay additional compensation for over-time hours at a rate of time-and-a-half, effectively bumping the approximately 104 additional yearly hours worked by men over women to 156 hours of at-pay compensation*.
Now that I have made it clear how the wage gap game is played and how it is an unabashed myth perpetuated by ignorant or malevolent individuals, I want to turn my attention to why we should be against equal pay in all cases. Not in a general sense, but in specific, individual by individual understanding of it. I want to use you, my dear reader, as the example.
Most of us agree that equal work deserves equal pay. But what of the variables such as education, tenure, an output? Let us say that you work a job which does not require an education but that having a specific education significantly helps you perform your duties. Let us now say you have such a job and also possess an education complimentary to, though not required of, the job. You have a co-worker to whom you share an identical role, title, and job description. This job is hourly. Your education allows you to consistently out perform your co-worker. Do you think you deserve to be paid the same as your less qualified co-worker? If you said 'no', then you understand where my argument against equal pay comes from.
To take this point further, I wish to impress upon you the importance of experience. Again, let us say you have an hourly paid job to which you have worked at for 10 years. You have a new co-worker who has the identical title and job description as you. Do you think you should be paid the same as your new co-worker? If you say 'yes' because you believe equal work deserves equal pay, then you fail to see the impact which experience plays on one's ability to perform their job. You have invested and committed yourself for 10 years to a company and role, you deserve to be appropriately compensated for that work.
I want to make it abundantly clear the role which personal qualifications and tenure ought to play in compensation. Those who perform better and are more qualified deserve to be better compensated than those who perform less and are less qualified. This factor does not concern itself with gender, race, or any of the other myriad identifiers which exist. This philosophy should be championed by every worker in some form. Grid systems, tier systems, set annual increases, or any other method which rewards both tenure or some form of improved work output rewards experience and tenure.
Further, the role which negotiating plays in starting compensation should not be overlooked. Negotiating is not restricted to men alone. In fact, and I am certain there are feminists out there who agree with me, women should be doing more for themselves to ensure they, as individuals, are being appropriately compensated. Document your work ethic and build rapport with your co-workers. Challenge your employer over your compensation using the evidence you have gathered about your worth to the company. Rarely will one by removed for doing so, making this a low-risk attempt to achieve better recognition for the work you perform.
So, does the wage gap exist? Absolutely not. Or, at least, not in the way it is so lazily conveyed to us. Even if it did, it would be because men work more dangerous jobs, men work more hours, and women, given a free society which allows them to choose to pursue their own passions and interests, work safer, less harmful jobs. The wage gap myth amounts to an attempt to obliterate equality of opportunity and replace virtues such as work ethic, commitment, and stalwart perseverance with equality of outcome. Where those who work hard earn as much as those who barely show up, those who are more learned are compensated the same as those who are willfully ignorant, and those who are qualified are paid equally to those are couldn't be bothered to try.
By fighting equality of outcome, you are fighting for yourself and the belief that the individual is more important than some loose collective. That your work ethic, commitment, and drive ought to be rewarded and not overlooked to accommodate another who lacks such moral character. The wage gap is not real and we should be damn happy that it isn't.
Talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
* From BLS 2014 statistics, full-time men worked 8.4 per day. Full-time does mean 35 or more hours per work in this publication, but many labour laws define overtime as greater than 8 hours per day, but this varies by state. The publication lists men as working 52 minutes more than women, but focusing on the time over the standard 8 hour day, we have men working 2 additional hours a week. This adds to 104 additional hours worked in the year, on average. Compensation for overtimes is assumed to be time-and-a-half (1.5x), multiplying the 104 overtime hours to 156 compensation hours. This is to show how rapidly a gap can grow between pay and earnings when a labourer works overtime hours and further clarifies why there is an aggregate difference between men and women.
Monday, November 30, 2015
Post 58 -- Goals, not fully trivial.
I have a goal. It isn't a glorious one or even one that most people wish to attain. Thus far I have been successful in working my way to some of my goals, while others have been re-assessed and pushed to different priorities.
Workouts continue. As November 30, I am at 85% attendance rate at the gym (or doing a workout in general). Sacrifice and discipline. Some days I hate it; exhausted, beaten up, and unwilling to endure another session of sweat and discomfort. Thankfully, I appreciate a more eudaimonic lifestyle: small sacrifice now, by way of calories, sweat, and time, and crucial benefits later. When it comes to workouts, this is no different.
Back in March of 2013, there was an incident with a piano and myself. About 900 lbs of piano toppled my direction during the unload of it. The downward force, which I did not drop, extended my back while compressing it with enough force to blow out three discs. A recent re-aggravation made my belief about the matter only more apparent. Obesity--hell, even slightly overweight--is only going to turn my life in a ceaseless torment of back spasms, increased nerve pain, and would accelerate the pesky problem of arthritis in my post-surgical joint.
Humble-brag aside, I wanted to illustrate the power of discipline when it comes to attaining goals. My goal of being fit is not something that will persist once "achieved". I must pursue it--endlessly so. Stoically. At times, tirelessly, or at least by way of mental fortitude.
This concept and habit of mine has been utilized in other areas of my life. For now, rather than boring you, my dear reader, I want to put the lens on the another goal, the one vaguely alluded to at the start. I wish to join The Rationalists. It isn't something which can merely be applied for and accepted on mere principle. Quite the opposite: it appears one must have a consistent, high quality production of predominately YouTube videos.
This is a mountain, just not an impossible one. It can be climbed, but first I must have my footing. Do not take this as a letter of intent for the pursuit. Not at all--just me, looking into a mirror, stating what I want.
This has been an unedited rant. Come talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Workouts continue. As November 30, I am at 85% attendance rate at the gym (or doing a workout in general). Sacrifice and discipline. Some days I hate it; exhausted, beaten up, and unwilling to endure another session of sweat and discomfort. Thankfully, I appreciate a more eudaimonic lifestyle: small sacrifice now, by way of calories, sweat, and time, and crucial benefits later. When it comes to workouts, this is no different.
Back in March of 2013, there was an incident with a piano and myself. About 900 lbs of piano toppled my direction during the unload of it. The downward force, which I did not drop, extended my back while compressing it with enough force to blow out three discs. A recent re-aggravation made my belief about the matter only more apparent. Obesity--hell, even slightly overweight--is only going to turn my life in a ceaseless torment of back spasms, increased nerve pain, and would accelerate the pesky problem of arthritis in my post-surgical joint.
Humble-brag aside, I wanted to illustrate the power of discipline when it comes to attaining goals. My goal of being fit is not something that will persist once "achieved". I must pursue it--endlessly so. Stoically. At times, tirelessly, or at least by way of mental fortitude.
This concept and habit of mine has been utilized in other areas of my life. For now, rather than boring you, my dear reader, I want to put the lens on the another goal, the one vaguely alluded to at the start. I wish to join The Rationalists. It isn't something which can merely be applied for and accepted on mere principle. Quite the opposite: it appears one must have a consistent, high quality production of predominately YouTube videos.
This is a mountain, just not an impossible one. It can be climbed, but first I must have my footing. Do not take this as a letter of intent for the pursuit. Not at all--just me, looking into a mirror, stating what I want.
This has been an unedited rant. Come talk to me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Friday, November 20, 2015
Post 57 -- No platforming or the monopolizing of time?
Let us begin by discussing what the term no platforming means. In its most simplest of terms, to no platform a speaker is to prevent him from having access to a stage or audience, thus preventing him from sharing his views. Without the ability to share his views, those opinions will not be impressed upon the audience.
Immediately it becomes clear why this is done, but with two interpretations depending on one's level of cynicism. If one is naive, then the argument in favour of no platforming is to save supple minds from being warped by heinous ideas (e.g., Holocaust denialism); conversely, the cynic says the act of no platforming is to stifle open discussion of topics. Both approaches do not address the central driving force behind the act.
If there is limited time to speak then one would ideally maximize that time with the best possible information. Now, let me invoke Wilkinson's Law and frame this in the most common venue for no platforming: the college campus. The soft and pliable minds of young students cannot properly analyze and critique terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas, so it is an act of compassion to prevent the airing of them. Well now, what of the time which would have otherwise been spent on sharing these terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas? Why, let us put in place the ideas which are not terrible, monstrous, or intolerant!
Now, let us reframe this slightly but placing no value on the ideas and just labeling them as simply ideas. Rather than "terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas" we now have "ideas". So we have the denial of time to one set of ideas and instead the sharing of another. The rejection of the first set was a based on the weakness and frailty of the youthful minds. These moral arbiters have instead utilized the time to espouse safe and positive ideologies... on these same weak and frail minds.
It ought to be clear by now what I'm aiming at, but in the event that it isn't, let me take one final crack at this. Social justice warriors are willing to "save" the minds of young students (i.e., their peers) from hearing horrendous ideas out of fear that those ideas will take root in their uncritical minds and instead will preach social justice to the very same sponge-like minds. No platforming is not about preventing "bad ideas" from being shared, but about monopolizing the time to spread the already established dogma; to entrench the ideology of social justice so as to choke out any possibility of even critical analysis of any non-social justice related issue, just as a well-seeded lawn prevents the growth of weeds.
Control plays an important part of this process, but again, it is not solely about control of the platform. It is predominately about the control of minds who would otherwise hear the no platformed views. Supple minds must be fed a particular set of ideas in order for them to "expand" down the narrow tunnel of social justice. By stifling the free speech on campus through the cowardly act of no platforming, these activist students have created a small box for their minds to live in. Moreover, they are ever vigilant in expanding this encompassing and intellectually suffocating box around the minds of their fellow collegians, eventually turning them into equally fearful and righteous students.
A glaring example of no platforming is not with a him but with a her. Ms. Germaine Greer, one of the most prolific voices in second-wave feminism, was attempted to be no platformed by the Cardiff Student Union's women's officer Rachel Melhuish via the do-nothing-activist hub change.org. The talk did take place on 18 November as scheduled, despite the petition and the slacktavist ramblings of a one Payton Quinn, who wrote four articles on why the act of no platforming is good via Huffington Post UK.
For context, Ms. Quinn (Mr.? I know there has been a transition, but I am entirely unaware of what the starting point was as compared to what the end point is) spends the articles complaining about being misgendered (see above), noting how freedom of speech and expression is established law in the United Kingdom, wholly misunderstanding the difference between hate speech and individual opinions (which, mind you, do not advocate intolerance or violence in this particular case), and ultimately arguing that there should be no freedom of speech where her/his (really, this is not done maliciously, I am truly ignorant of Quinn's gender situation) feelings or opinions may be harmed.
In Quinn's most recent article on the matter, there is a fantastic example of how not understanding that no platforming is tantamount to the erosion of free speech, lamenting the jab of one attendee who said, "No, I believe in free speech" as she rebuked the flyers on offer. The flyers were selections of Greer's writings on transwomen. Quinn had purchased tickets, but chose not to attend, creating the perfect irony: the act of no platforming prevents all from hearing the views of Greer, stripping them of choice. By exercising choice, Quinn was not exposed to the views of Greer while allowing others to.
So comes the Fallout shelter problem: the entire community tells you it is dangerous to leave, as the world outside is dangerous. Instead, it is best to stay in the dark, tight, small shelter and listen to the administrator, for he knows best. The mere act of pondering to leave is met with derision and scorn. It is best not to upset the collective... and to listen and believe.
Find me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Immediately it becomes clear why this is done, but with two interpretations depending on one's level of cynicism. If one is naive, then the argument in favour of no platforming is to save supple minds from being warped by heinous ideas (e.g., Holocaust denialism); conversely, the cynic says the act of no platforming is to stifle open discussion of topics. Both approaches do not address the central driving force behind the act.
If there is limited time to speak then one would ideally maximize that time with the best possible information. Now, let me invoke Wilkinson's Law and frame this in the most common venue for no platforming: the college campus. The soft and pliable minds of young students cannot properly analyze and critique terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas, so it is an act of compassion to prevent the airing of them. Well now, what of the time which would have otherwise been spent on sharing these terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas? Why, let us put in place the ideas which are not terrible, monstrous, or intolerant!
Now, let us reframe this slightly but placing no value on the ideas and just labeling them as simply ideas. Rather than "terrible, monstrous, or intolerant ideas" we now have "ideas". So we have the denial of time to one set of ideas and instead the sharing of another. The rejection of the first set was a based on the weakness and frailty of the youthful minds. These moral arbiters have instead utilized the time to espouse safe and positive ideologies... on these same weak and frail minds.
It ought to be clear by now what I'm aiming at, but in the event that it isn't, let me take one final crack at this. Social justice warriors are willing to "save" the minds of young students (i.e., their peers) from hearing horrendous ideas out of fear that those ideas will take root in their uncritical minds and instead will preach social justice to the very same sponge-like minds. No platforming is not about preventing "bad ideas" from being shared, but about monopolizing the time to spread the already established dogma; to entrench the ideology of social justice so as to choke out any possibility of even critical analysis of any non-social justice related issue, just as a well-seeded lawn prevents the growth of weeds.
Control plays an important part of this process, but again, it is not solely about control of the platform. It is predominately about the control of minds who would otherwise hear the no platformed views. Supple minds must be fed a particular set of ideas in order for them to "expand" down the narrow tunnel of social justice. By stifling the free speech on campus through the cowardly act of no platforming, these activist students have created a small box for their minds to live in. Moreover, they are ever vigilant in expanding this encompassing and intellectually suffocating box around the minds of their fellow collegians, eventually turning them into equally fearful and righteous students.
A glaring example of no platforming is not with a him but with a her. Ms. Germaine Greer, one of the most prolific voices in second-wave feminism, was attempted to be no platformed by the Cardiff Student Union's women's officer Rachel Melhuish via the do-nothing-activist hub change.org. The talk did take place on 18 November as scheduled, despite the petition and the slacktavist ramblings of a one Payton Quinn, who wrote four articles on why the act of no platforming is good via Huffington Post UK.
For context, Ms. Quinn (Mr.? I know there has been a transition, but I am entirely unaware of what the starting point was as compared to what the end point is) spends the articles complaining about being misgendered (see above), noting how freedom of speech and expression is established law in the United Kingdom, wholly misunderstanding the difference between hate speech and individual opinions (which, mind you, do not advocate intolerance or violence in this particular case), and ultimately arguing that there should be no freedom of speech where her/his (really, this is not done maliciously, I am truly ignorant of Quinn's gender situation) feelings or opinions may be harmed.
In Quinn's most recent article on the matter, there is a fantastic example of how not understanding that no platforming is tantamount to the erosion of free speech, lamenting the jab of one attendee who said, "No, I believe in free speech" as she rebuked the flyers on offer. The flyers were selections of Greer's writings on transwomen. Quinn had purchased tickets, but chose not to attend, creating the perfect irony: the act of no platforming prevents all from hearing the views of Greer, stripping them of choice. By exercising choice, Quinn was not exposed to the views of Greer while allowing others to.
So comes the Fallout shelter problem: the entire community tells you it is dangerous to leave, as the world outside is dangerous. Instead, it is best to stay in the dark, tight, small shelter and listen to the administrator, for he knows best. The mere act of pondering to leave is met with derision and scorn. It is best not to upset the collective... and to listen and believe.
Find me on Twitter: @nrokchi
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Post 56 -- Milo misunderstands net neutrality.
It shouldn't come as a shock to most that the fabulous Milo Yianopolous isn't perfect. While close, there are some strange quirks about the man that were uncovered in his conversation with Joe Rogan during The Powerful Joe Rogan Experience #702. A small example is the love for a monarch and people being "born and bred to rule".
Another stunning example of Milo's short comings--which contradicts his pro-consumer #GamerGate stance and conservative business values--is his disdain for net neutrality. At the basis of this is his misunderstanding of what net neutrality is attempting to do. I will provide a few examples though this to clarify for those who do not understand what the impact of net neutrality has on individuals and businesses.
Here is where it starts in JRE.
"It's about the government regulating the internet," says Milo in his argument that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech. He goes on to state, "it is about the government trying to intrude into the private relationship between a company and it's customer. Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude into that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with [your internet provider]."
In summary of Milo's points, net neutrality is a direct intrusion by way of government over reach into private contracts between two parties.
Milo continues to add some nonsense about the government attempting to interfere with ISPs having tiered services for their customers, a claim that is entirely bogus on its face.
Here is where Milo, and other anti-net neutrality advocates, need a small education on how business views net neutrality. This is not merely ramblings of someone who doesn't know better; I have information from a lead developer of one of the largest cloud companies in the world who has spoken with me about how his company would approach a world of net neutrality and the world without it.
Let's start with an example. Three men walk into McDonald's. One works for Radio Shack, one works for the city, and one is unemployed. They all wish to purchase a Big Mac. The man from Radio Shack pays $1.50. The man from the city pays $1.00. The unemployed man pays $2.00. Each of these men received the same service, had the same wait time, and received identical burgers in presentation and calories. Why did they have to pay different amounts? Well, that's because Radio Shack and the city have contracts with McDonald's which states what they get to pay for their Big Macs. The unemployed fellow has no such contact, so it forced to pay a higher rate for the same item.
Let's use those same three men again. This time, they are all purchasing a Big Mac and they all pay $1.50 for it. The man from Radio Shack gets the standard Big Mac. The man from the city gets a Big Mac with additional cheese and two additional burger patties. The unemployed man does not get cheese and only gets one burger patty. Again, because of the contracts between each company, the same named item is distributed at different levels for the same price.
But wait, there's more! This isn't just about the Big Mac contracts. This is also about the people providing the produce, condiments, buns, and beef. Each contract dictates how each individual contract receives a different quality product for each burger component. This is not an act of reducto ad absurdum; rather, this is illustrating the point with an example which most can imagine themselves being in.
To extrapolate this out into your personal contract with your ISP, consider the following: not only do you negotiate (or more likely just agree to what is being offered) on your internet speed (e.g., 15 Mbps upload/ 1 Mbps download), but your agreement would also contain hundreds of pages of what bandwidth is available between you and the internet sites which you might visit. So, even though you would be purchasing a, let's say, basic package (15/1), you would not get a smooth 15 Mbps download maximum from each site. Instead, you would see a list such as:
Another stunning example of Milo's short comings--which contradicts his pro-consumer #GamerGate stance and conservative business values--is his disdain for net neutrality. At the basis of this is his misunderstanding of what net neutrality is attempting to do. I will provide a few examples though this to clarify for those who do not understand what the impact of net neutrality has on individuals and businesses.
Here is where it starts in JRE.
"It's about the government regulating the internet," says Milo in his argument that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech. He goes on to state, "it is about the government trying to intrude into the private relationship between a company and it's customer. Net neutrality is about the government trying to intrude into that relationship and dictating what kind of business arrangement you can come to with [your internet provider]."
In summary of Milo's points, net neutrality is a direct intrusion by way of government over reach into private contracts between two parties.
Milo continues to add some nonsense about the government attempting to interfere with ISPs having tiered services for their customers, a claim that is entirely bogus on its face.
Here is where Milo, and other anti-net neutrality advocates, need a small education on how business views net neutrality. This is not merely ramblings of someone who doesn't know better; I have information from a lead developer of one of the largest cloud companies in the world who has spoken with me about how his company would approach a world of net neutrality and the world without it.
Let's start with an example. Three men walk into McDonald's. One works for Radio Shack, one works for the city, and one is unemployed. They all wish to purchase a Big Mac. The man from Radio Shack pays $1.50. The man from the city pays $1.00. The unemployed man pays $2.00. Each of these men received the same service, had the same wait time, and received identical burgers in presentation and calories. Why did they have to pay different amounts? Well, that's because Radio Shack and the city have contracts with McDonald's which states what they get to pay for their Big Macs. The unemployed fellow has no such contact, so it forced to pay a higher rate for the same item.
Let's use those same three men again. This time, they are all purchasing a Big Mac and they all pay $1.50 for it. The man from Radio Shack gets the standard Big Mac. The man from the city gets a Big Mac with additional cheese and two additional burger patties. The unemployed man does not get cheese and only gets one burger patty. Again, because of the contracts between each company, the same named item is distributed at different levels for the same price.
But wait, there's more! This isn't just about the Big Mac contracts. This is also about the people providing the produce, condiments, buns, and beef. Each contract dictates how each individual contract receives a different quality product for each burger component. This is not an act of reducto ad absurdum; rather, this is illustrating the point with an example which most can imagine themselves being in.
To extrapolate this out into your personal contract with your ISP, consider the following: not only do you negotiate (or more likely just agree to what is being offered) on your internet speed (e.g., 15 Mbps upload/ 1 Mbps download), but your agreement would also contain hundreds of pages of what bandwidth is available between you and the internet sites which you might visit. So, even though you would be purchasing a, let's say, basic package (15/1), you would not get a smooth 15 Mbps download maximum from each site. Instead, you would see a list such as:
- YouTube: 1.6 Mbps down, 0.5 Mbps up
- Twitter: 0.5 Mbps down, 0.2 Mbps up
- Reddit: 5 Mbps down, 0.01 Mbps up
- Amazon: 1 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up
- ... and so fourth.
Each company's rate would be determined through what each company pays for its data to be shared through the ISP and to each customer based on rates determined outside of the maximum upload rates. Expanding this out a bit more, this means that, for example, one particular ISP is vehemently anti-pornography--be it evangelicals or feminists--they could say those particular packets of information from any web hosting service which deals with hosting pornography are different from non-pornography packets and charge a rate so absurd that the cost to the consumer and host would be prohibitive. A Christian ISP could do the same to atheist content hosts. We have already established that search engines such as Google cannot write algorithms which hide or undervalue results from its competitors. Why should we allow ISPs to determine what each packet of information is worth simply based on the company or hosting service from whence they came?
One more example, as this ties into another quote from Milo: "... just like you can get a better car if you pay more." Again, this is Milo making the dumb statement that ISPs wouldn't be allowed to sell tiered packages (i.e., basic [15/1], silver [25/5], gold [50/10], platinum [100/25]). What this statement implies is that if you pay more money, you will get better access. The thing is, with cars, you don't get special treatment on roadways. This is because roads are publicly owned. Railways, telephone lines, and utilities are considered common carriers, entities so central and valuable to our lives that to charge different rates for different parties on arbitrary grounds is deemed immoral.
Back to the car thing, though: whether you buy a Honda Accord or an Audi A4 you do not get special rules based on the maker of your car. Owning a Lexus doesn't mean the freeway speed is 75 MPH while Ford owners are limited to 60 MPH. Is this clear yet?
* Here's an example of what the internet world will look like without net neutrality. Let's say there is a business in Vancouver, Washington, Go To Gutter Guys, a gutter installation and cleaning company. It's a small business which has purchased web hosting from another small business in the Pacific Northwest. Both Go To Gutter Guys and the hosting service use Comcast Xfinity as their ISP. Now, say there is someone in Florida who is trying to help his elderly grandparents in Vancouver find someone to clear their gutters. The person in Florida attempts to connect to gotogutterguys.com to inquire about rates. Our fictional Florida Man does not have Comcast. His ISP instead doesn't have a deal or an arrangement with Comcast or the web hosting service. The Florida Man's ISP then aggressively throttles or even blocks access to the gotoguttersguys.com. Why? Because without net neutrality, there is no consumer protections in place which will prevent any ISP which is not providing the internet service to a party from throttling or blocking access to that party's site. This harms small businesses, medium businesses, civic governments, and consumers far more than federal infrastructure or major companies. Again, all of this is done despite what tiered level of service a party my have purchased.
* Here's an example of what the internet world will look like without net neutrality. Let's say there is a business in Vancouver, Washington, Go To Gutter Guys, a gutter installation and cleaning company. It's a small business which has purchased web hosting from another small business in the Pacific Northwest. Both Go To Gutter Guys and the hosting service use Comcast Xfinity as their ISP. Now, say there is someone in Florida who is trying to help his elderly grandparents in Vancouver find someone to clear their gutters. The person in Florida attempts to connect to gotogutterguys.com to inquire about rates. Our fictional Florida Man does not have Comcast. His ISP instead doesn't have a deal or an arrangement with Comcast or the web hosting service. The Florida Man's ISP then aggressively throttles or even blocks access to the gotoguttersguys.com. Why? Because without net neutrality, there is no consumer protections in place which will prevent any ISP which is not providing the internet service to a party from throttling or blocking access to that party's site. This harms small businesses, medium businesses, civic governments, and consumers far more than federal infrastructure or major companies. Again, all of this is done despite what tiered level of service a party my have purchased.
With net neutrality, you buy service based on your needs. You get a certain maximum download and upload speed. These speeds are slightly mediated by what the content hosting services are paying for. All packets are equal. A world without net neutrality would mean that each contract would require customers to negotiate for not only what level of service they want, but for what access to each site, as effected by what each site has negotiated for it's access to consumers. It is utterly, wholly ridiculous to argue that net neutrality is inherently anti-free speech when its expressed purpose is to prevent companies and governments from determining the value of each packet based on its content and source.
Sorry glorious Milo, but you're just wrong on net neutrality.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
* This paragraph was added after the original publication to help further clarify and illustrate the harm caused by a lack of consumer protection.
* This paragraph was added after the original publication to help further clarify and illustrate the harm caused by a lack of consumer protection.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Post 55 -- "That's problematic."
Some morning thoughts came to me while I was preparing a strong brew of coffee. Only black; always strong.
The word "problematic" has always humoured me. It reminds me of the Rocko's Modern Life, where our wallaby star lived in O-Town and everything was something-o-matic. I guess the social justice sorts in this world found things problem-o-matic. Now, if you ask Google, 'what does matic mean?' you get this wonderful result:
Skype, the most ubiquitous of online call services, came into being from two Estonian programmers. The service includes a simple echo test for the user's speakers and microphone. The echo test uses a woman's voice. The woman's voice has British accent--I believe a Geordie accent to be specific. Here is how the regressive left deals with something a benign as this. The following is satire and shouldn't be taken seriously.
The Skype echo test voice is problematic as it uses a female voice to depict women as a secretary at the whims of a call service uses.
It is doubly problematic as it fetishizes the accented voice as being more desirable than the user's local accents while also keeping the woman in a submissive support role.
Echo test is triply problematic because it prevents the woman from being able to assist the user, perpetuating the stereotype of women being incompetent with technology, disposable to men's needs as a mere testing agent, and stripped of agency!
It might seem like a caricature of the modern progressive movement, but a moment of reflection on a few recent topics demonstrates the eerie accuracy of this satire. Take, for a quick example, the protests against the Silent Sam statue on UNC-Chapel Hill's campus, the protest against Thomas Jefferson's statue on the Missouri University campus in Columbia, MO, and the feminist protest/activism at the opening of Suffragette, a movie about women's empowerment.
No, this satire is pointed and accurate. That is what makes it satire. Every time I hear something is "problematic", I immediately think of the half dozen spin off issues from the original one, and then play a game of mental bingo to see how far the regressives take it.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
The word "problematic" has always humoured me. It reminds me of the Rocko's Modern Life, where our wallaby star lived in O-Town and everything was something-o-matic. I guess the social justice sorts in this world found things problem-o-matic. Now, if you ask Google, 'what does matic mean?' you get this wonderful result:
""Automatic" can be broken down into auto-, meaning self, and -matic, willing. It therefore translates to "willing to self-perform".""Willing", eh? A willing problem? Of course, going back to the dictionary to dig up root meanings of words or particular suffixes or prefixes is pedantic, but this was my original line of reasoning behind why the word 'problematic' makes me laugh so much. Issues to the regressive left are simply automatically a problem, or said another way, are inherently a problem simply for existing, as subjectively evaluated by that given person or ideology.
Skype, the most ubiquitous of online call services, came into being from two Estonian programmers. The service includes a simple echo test for the user's speakers and microphone. The echo test uses a woman's voice. The woman's voice has British accent--I believe a Geordie accent to be specific. Here is how the regressive left deals with something a benign as this. The following is satire and shouldn't be taken seriously.
The Skype echo test voice is problematic as it uses a female voice to depict women as a secretary at the whims of a call service uses.
It is doubly problematic as it fetishizes the accented voice as being more desirable than the user's local accents while also keeping the woman in a submissive support role.
Echo test is triply problematic because it prevents the woman from being able to assist the user, perpetuating the stereotype of women being incompetent with technology, disposable to men's needs as a mere testing agent, and stripped of agency!
It might seem like a caricature of the modern progressive movement, but a moment of reflection on a few recent topics demonstrates the eerie accuracy of this satire. Take, for a quick example, the protests against the Silent Sam statue on UNC-Chapel Hill's campus, the protest against Thomas Jefferson's statue on the Missouri University campus in Columbia, MO, and the feminist protest/activism at the opening of Suffragette, a movie about women's empowerment.
No, this satire is pointed and accurate. That is what makes it satire. Every time I hear something is "problematic", I immediately think of the half dozen spin off issues from the original one, and then play a game of mental bingo to see how far the regressives take it.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Post 54 -- Label 'em, brand 'em
Cattle ranchers, after realizing their bovine were being removed from their care, decided on a rather simple method ensuring their walking steaks would not be easy to steal by branding them. This practice ensured the ranchers' remained honest with each other and made it too difficult for cattle rustlers to sell the animal in local markets.
History has examples of humans being branded for a various reasons, with ownership and punishment being the leading two reasons. A branding label of "B" was used to denote a blasphemer in 17th Century Puritan North America, for example. This terrible human being was not to be trusted and became a pariah--in all communities which he traveled to.
In the internet age, people enjoy labeling others either out of convenience or out of intellectual laziness. This is the point I am going to write to here, illustrating the tricks and paths taken to quickly dismiss or claim others by the most vapid "enlightened" groups of people. It is cultish behaviour to seek out people and label them to be your own as much as it is to proclaim others as heretics.
Go onto YouTube and look up "what is a feminist?" and you'll get a standard block of videos of (mostly) young (mostly) girls reading a dictionary definition of feminism into a webcam. It is the same approach that others, while recruiting, use to get others to "realize" they are a feminists. Do you believe in equality between the sexes? Do you think that women should be paid the same for the same work? Do you believe that woman should have equal access to university and the workplace? If you said 'yes', then you're a feminist! The thing is, I'm not.
Then you're a misogynist!
That is the game in action. Despite saying 'yes' to those questions, I am not a feminist. There are many other tenants which are not listed above that I do not agree with which actively keep me away from the modern feminist movement. The pay gap falsity, the 1-in-4 lie, and Marxist "lack of representation in politics" narratives all keep me away from drinking that particular flavour of Kool-Aide. Not to mention accepting modern feminism is also accepting there is an invisible, unyielding, and unbeatable (but don't tell the zealots) force controlling everything called The Patriarchy.
Using simple data points, which are not comprehensive the entire picture, as anchor points for slapping a label onto someone is lazy and is most certainly disingenuous. Even when attempting to bring in a newest adherent, it is sinister to simplify a movement down to such ambiguous, self-evident facts. Take another example, this time stripped of intent: I own a gun. Now, what does that say about me?
The answer that I own a gun. Nothing more. I could be a pacifist who views it as art. I could be a paranoid man believing aliens will get me and that the gun will protect me from interstellar travelers. I might be a hunter. Or a game warden. Or just a sport shooter. Whether or not I own a gun is only a single fact, unable to be extrapolated into a larger theory. Just as a single datum or case-study does not make a new theory of everything. Facts, however, can be placed under ideological light.
When speaking to a Republican, I'm just an American. (I'm not. I'm a Canadian living in the United States).
When evaluated by progressives, I'm a threat who doesn't care about the lives lost to gun violence.
If asked by my mother, I get a long, "Why?"
Of course, there is some good and some bad from this. The NRA would love to have me as a member based on that single fact. Some gun-control activists want me to register in a mental institution. There is no benefit to being labeled a good person or a bad person based on factoid of me owning a gun. Yet, there are many out there who would be ready to label me something based on it, despite it being entirely neutral.
The quip above about saying that I'm not a feminist leading immediately to being called a misogynist is a general view on how the process works. Again, if I agree that the penis of a baby boy should not be cut because some women find it more appealing when he is older, that does not make me a men's rights activist. Nor does saying that I am not an MRA make me a de facto feminist. The labels are thrown around to either be claimed as part of a movement to bolster numbers and drum up support or they are being rashly applied to the neophytes exploring their understanding of the world know not to encounter the blasphemer.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
History has examples of humans being branded for a various reasons, with ownership and punishment being the leading two reasons. A branding label of "B" was used to denote a blasphemer in 17th Century Puritan North America, for example. This terrible human being was not to be trusted and became a pariah--in all communities which he traveled to.
In the internet age, people enjoy labeling others either out of convenience or out of intellectual laziness. This is the point I am going to write to here, illustrating the tricks and paths taken to quickly dismiss or claim others by the most vapid "enlightened" groups of people. It is cultish behaviour to seek out people and label them to be your own as much as it is to proclaim others as heretics.
Go onto YouTube and look up "what is a feminist?" and you'll get a standard block of videos of (mostly) young (mostly) girls reading a dictionary definition of feminism into a webcam. It is the same approach that others, while recruiting, use to get others to "realize" they are a feminists. Do you believe in equality between the sexes? Do you think that women should be paid the same for the same work? Do you believe that woman should have equal access to university and the workplace? If you said 'yes', then you're a feminist! The thing is, I'm not.
Then you're a misogynist!
That is the game in action. Despite saying 'yes' to those questions, I am not a feminist. There are many other tenants which are not listed above that I do not agree with which actively keep me away from the modern feminist movement. The pay gap falsity, the 1-in-4 lie, and Marxist "lack of representation in politics" narratives all keep me away from drinking that particular flavour of Kool-Aide. Not to mention accepting modern feminism is also accepting there is an invisible, unyielding, and unbeatable (but don't tell the zealots) force controlling everything called The Patriarchy.
Using simple data points, which are not comprehensive the entire picture, as anchor points for slapping a label onto someone is lazy and is most certainly disingenuous. Even when attempting to bring in a newest adherent, it is sinister to simplify a movement down to such ambiguous, self-evident facts. Take another example, this time stripped of intent: I own a gun. Now, what does that say about me?
The answer that I own a gun. Nothing more. I could be a pacifist who views it as art. I could be a paranoid man believing aliens will get me and that the gun will protect me from interstellar travelers. I might be a hunter. Or a game warden. Or just a sport shooter. Whether or not I own a gun is only a single fact, unable to be extrapolated into a larger theory. Just as a single datum or case-study does not make a new theory of everything. Facts, however, can be placed under ideological light.
When speaking to a Republican, I'm just an American. (I'm not. I'm a Canadian living in the United States).
When evaluated by progressives, I'm a threat who doesn't care about the lives lost to gun violence.
If asked by my mother, I get a long, "Why?"
Of course, there is some good and some bad from this. The NRA would love to have me as a member based on that single fact. Some gun-control activists want me to register in a mental institution. There is no benefit to being labeled a good person or a bad person based on factoid of me owning a gun. Yet, there are many out there who would be ready to label me something based on it, despite it being entirely neutral.
The quip above about saying that I'm not a feminist leading immediately to being called a misogynist is a general view on how the process works. Again, if I agree that the penis of a baby boy should not be cut because some women find it more appealing when he is older, that does not make me a men's rights activist. Nor does saying that I am not an MRA make me a de facto feminist. The labels are thrown around to either be claimed as part of a movement to bolster numbers and drum up support or they are being rashly applied to the neophytes exploring their understanding of the world know not to encounter the blasphemer.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)