>> ^CaptainObvious:

I have never gone to one of these events, but I really want to. Not sure if I am too old now though, is it all youngies or are there any 30++ aged people.


A former coworker who is over 40 years old still go! He does it with his sons.

We're heavily encouraged to dog-food because we're such a tightly integrated Microsoft shop (we have a lot of contact with MS employees, so it's a nice way to suck up to them I guess.)

The improvements to Explorer are the only thing that makes me want to go. All of my coworkers are upgrading their Windows 7 workstations to 8, but I'm not feeling it, not yet.

>> ^toferyu:

Damn you ! Making me watch this in a coworking environment... should be tagged NSFW !


I got something in my eye, also.

Damn you ! Making me watch this in a coworking environment... should be tagged NSFW !

The good thing about tuna is the dolphin.
>> ^deathcow:

Hey, you gotta lift heavy metals to gain muscle.>> ^direpickle:
>> ^deathcow:
She eats clean. She'll gobble a can of tuna while her coworkers share a pizza.

Mmm, mercury poisoning.

Hey, you gotta lift heavy metals to gain muscle.>> ^direpickle:

>> ^deathcow:
She eats clean. She'll gobble a can of tuna while her coworkers share a pizza.

Mmm, mercury poisoning.

>> ^deathcow:

She eats clean. She'll gobble a can of tuna while her coworkers share a pizza.


Mmm, mercury poisoning.

She eats clean. She'll gobble a can of tuna while her coworkers share a pizza.

I was really tempted to downvote comments for falsehood here, but I think responding to those falsehoods may end up being more valuable. Also because @NetRunner shouldn't have to be the only one arguing in favor of equality.

>> ^Trancecoach:

And my response to that, again, (and let me make this clear, because you seem to think that we're in disagreement on this point) is to accept that there is, in fact, a wage disparity on the basis of gender. What I am suggesting, which I believe Rachel doesn't appreciate in this clip, is that there are other, deeper, societal reasons underlying this wage disparity and, thus, there are other, deeper, societal ways to address these reasons which do not include legislation in the manner in which it's being proposed.

This is demonstrably false -- In fact, they address it in the clip. Using the most complex models with as many variables as possible, there is still a massive gap in pay that cannot be accounted for by economic class, lifestyle choice, occupation, or any other variable. These studies don't just look at aggregate figures, even though the data is almost always presented that way. When you have two people of opposite gender in the same position, the woman will almost always make considerably less than the man.

>> ^Trancecoach:
Farrell does offer some explanations for the wage disparity and, like me, feels it's unacceptable, morally. We (You, Rachel, Warren, and myself) could all, essentially, cite the very same statistics and studies and draw different interpretations and conclusions from the data which clearly demonstrates the disparity in wages on the basis of gender. While I do not side with conservatives or corporatists on this issue (because I do not deny that the wage disparity exists nor do believe that it's the way it should or ought to be), I do believe there are other underlying factors which include both misogyny and misandry that have fostered the problem to its current state.


Your comment that you can draw different conclusions from the same statistics is meaningless unless you actually do it -- That is, produce your own analysis based on the data or find someone who has. Otherwise it's akin to saying "You can use statistics to prove anything, so we should disregard any conclusions people have drawn from them." You can dismiss any conclusion or evidence in this fashion, and it has no place in a rational discussion.

I haven't read Farrell's work, so I'm going to have to infer his arguments based on what you've written about him. It sounds like what he's presenting is a guide to how women end up making less based on lifestyle choices -- Choosing to stay with a child instead of going to work, choosing not to take a better paying job elsewhere to stay near family, choosing (involuntarily) not to fight as hard for a raise as her male coworkers, etc. This information can be used successfully to avoid making those choices or to mitigate them, and avoid falling into the "lower pay" traps.

This is certainly useful information, but it is not a valid basis for justifying a pay gap. The fallacy with that argument is that it necessarily presupposes that your pay for a particular job should depend on how you got that job. Let's say we have a man from a somewhat wealthy family that traveled a lot after college and so entered the workforce late, received adequate performance reviews, changed companies a couple of times, and now is in his mid-30s as a middle manager in a financial firm. Let's also take a woman from a lower-middle class family who worked hard to get a Masters degree and started at a financial services firm but had to take time off to care for an ailing family member and put her career on hold for a few years to have children, and now in her mid-30s has found herself in the same middle manager position at the same firm.

Given that premise, statistics tell us that the man will almost certainly be making more than the woman -- Possibly even 25% more. You could argue that the man likely has more pull at the company because of his family's wealth and that the woman made poor choices (earnings wise) by putting her career on hold for so long, but the fact is that they are both in the same position doing the same thing. The law doesn't care how your career went and how you ended up in your job; it clearly states that for the same work men and women should be paid equally, and the woman in this scenario is the target of discrimination.

The act is obviously inappropriate, but it's how he reacts that gets people confused. By him presenting it as if it's no big deal, the people around him begin to doubt their own moral standards, which in my opinion is pathetic.

Just because the guy acts like it's nothing doesn't change the fact that he sent inappropriate pictures to his employees, and exclusively to women. One of the host makes a comparison between this guy and Anthony Weiner and says he's different because Weiner was trying to have an affair while this guy isn't. Where the fuck did he come up with that bullshit. It's the same exact motive except one guy was ashamed while the other guy is putting on an act as if it's no big deal.

What bothers me most about this segment is that the hosts are deeming the man's action as 'cool' and 'awesome'. How naive can you be? Holy Shit.

The hosts find this amusing and not a real issue. They don't see the fact that this man has just sent naked pictures of himself to his female coworkers. This is such an obvious sexual harassment case that a blind man can point it out for you. He's objectifying women as sexual objects by presenting himself as one, that they need to witness his sexual prowess whether they like it or not.

And TYT is suppose to be a show about pointing out social and political justice... Right. I'm especially disappointed with Ana Kasparian.

Creepy Old Man Hijinks 1 : 0 Female Dignity

That's not really the issue she's taking with him. It's that it's obvious he hasn't actually talked with them about this stuff, hasn't listened to what they had to say and taken it to heart, and then publicly asserts all complaints about what the GOP is doing are null and void because these specific women are behind him 100%, when...they're not.

This goes way beyond "lying", it's more like dramatic irony. His response to the accusation that the GOP disrespect women actually revealed just how much he does in fact disrespect them. It's one thing for Mitch McConnell to not be exactly in tune with what women in general are saying, but these are coworkers of his that he's referring to by name in a press conference, and it's obvious he hasn't bothered to check whether they actually feel the way he says they do or not.

It'd actually be better if he knew their positions and was lying, but I think he honestly didn't know what he was saying was wrong. After all, if he knew what their publicly stated positions were, would he really tell the press to go ask them how they feel about these issues?

>> ^Trancecoach:

A politician lied?
I can hardly believe it!

>> ^curiousity:

Makes me think of the Halloween episode of NewsRadio where Dave (David Foley) dresses up as a woman and his coworker/girlfriend is upset because he looks better in her dress to which he responds, "Well how do you think it makes me feel to realize at age 30 that I'm much better looking as a girl?"
Well, that was random.


Yes! Exactly!!!

Makes me think of the Halloween episode of NewsRadio where Dave (David Foley) dresses up as a woman and his coworker/girlfriend is upset because he looks better in her dress to which he responds, "Well how do you think it makes me feel to realize at age 30 that I'm much better looking as a girl?"

Well, that was random.

I work in IT for state gov't and I think the argument that private sector being more efficient than private sector is a bit deceptive.

I think the reason that phenomenon exists is that private sector is allowed to offer better pay to attract the better talent. Gov't often has a very rigid pay structure for the workers. A few years ago we wanted to hire a database admin and we were forced to take our 3rd choice for the job because the 1st and 2nd demanded higher pay and we simply aren't allowed to meet that demand. Not that we couldn't meet that demand. So gov't is being forced to have one hand tied behind their back to start with so IMO you can't judge public vs private with the same metric. The contest is rigged. Then on top of it, this rigid pay structure only appears to apply to the lower and middle levels of gov't. Very often are the pay grades for the upper level directors and commisioners that get appointed are listed as "discretionary" In other words, the bureaucrats made a back room deal.

It gets even worse typically when a Republican gets in office. The same guy that would give himself and his workers bonuses in the private sector is telling public employees that they're going to lay them off or give them furloughs or de-fund various agencies. It's a double standard. So we have this situation where we elect into government, someone who hates gov't and sabotages it and then whines about how gov't is inefficient. They're the ones that MADE it inefficient. They talk about free markets, but then they rig the game in their favor.

It's even more interesting when we occasionally hire someone who used to work in the private sector. They always complain that we don't have some luxury perk or why we don't have legions of interns to do the grunt work for them. Speaking for myself personally, there was this one time I was helping a coworker set up a presentation with their laptop and a simple projector and this guy who used to work for the private sector started complaining about how we didn't have the sophisticated AV system and the sound proofed auditorium that his private sector job had. He was just that spoiled that he simply didn't understand why we didn't have those things that we didn't even need for a basic presentation.

So if you actually want to talk about efficiency? a Lower or middle level gov't employee typically receives far less pay than their private sector counterpart, but yet is usually expected to produce the same level of work. So in that regard, gov't is far more efficient. It gets muddled when you factor the higher level positions and factor in other agencies. News flash: not all gov't agencies are the same, speaking from experience, some have higher standards than others. You simply can't lump them all and judge them the same way.