Things Trump cultists here are forced to ignore

>>8093059
>Things Trump cultists here are forced to ignore
Bombing Syria!

Alt-righters and liberals have both been cucked.

Feels great to be a neocon in 2017.

>>8093059
>implying trump is responsible for chechnya and some annoying fuck from OK
>believing in wage gaps
I don't like trump but is this the best you could do?

>>8093059
>straight gay wage gap
Gays are probably just inferior workers, like women.

>>8093151

Trump cultists worship Putin and like to make the extremely flimsy excuse Russia isn't like the Middle East.

>>8093304
We Trump supporters don't worship Putin, but a lot of people are realistic about Russia. We in the West do not have a moral superiority over them. Our military and intelligence intervene everywhere all the time, often breaking international law, because we can. They can too, and so of course they will. We still should work with them to destroy BOTH ISIS and al-Qaeda.

>>8093343

Fascinating.

Unfortunately, most Trump supporters do in fact act as russian apologists. See previous threads like this. Or anything Milo says.

File: russia17.jpg (87KB, 877x624px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 877x624px

>>8093513
Why do you hate Russia so much?

>>8093166
Gays actually have a higher IQ than straights on average, so it doesn't seem plausible. But at least you're open about your bigotry and don't use the "but if women are paid less why don't companies hire only women" meme.

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/north_carolina_bill_declaring_all_same_sex_marriages_null_and_void_will_not_move_forward_says_speaker?utm_content=buffercf7c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

>>8093588

Because unlike you I have a moral code

>>8093794
>IQ = being productive
Apparently not.

Pretty sure gays have the same IQ as straights anyway.

>"but if women are paid less why don't companies hire only women"
That's a good question for anyone who denies women are as productive as men.

>>8093513
This is my opinion on the Russosphere:

http://therightstuff.biz/2017/04/08/syria-explained-the-war-between-eurasia-and-zion/

Putin and co spend too many resources and too much time capitulating to Jews and Muslims.


> Or anything Milo says
What is this, 2015? Le Alt-Lite aggregated around Cernovich, and Le Alt-Right aggregated around Spencer.
>>8093059
Not any of my business.
Furthermore this supports anti-Muslim Pro-Russia narratives since Russia and Chechnya have been somewhat at odds over the past several decades, and Chechnya is at least nominally mostly Muslim.

Lrn2narratives.
>>8093817
Why the disproportionate focus on Russia? Why not focus on the views of LGBT among the Saudis, the Kurds, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the FSA?

>>8093059
>talking about politics on /lgbt/
ishygddt

>>8093836
>Apparently not.
Based on what?

>>8093862
>What is this, 2015? Le Alt-Lite aggregated around Cernovich, and Le Alt-Right aggregated around Spencer.
Spencer is a literal meme.

>>8093862
>Why the disproportionate focus on Russia? Why not focus on the views of LGBT among the Saudis, the Kurds, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the FSA?
Because
1) Those countries don't pretend to be Western, so Westerners have lower expectations of them to begin with.
2) Our government isn't advocating alliance with them.
3) Most people already know/agree that they're bad, particularly when it comes to LGBT rights. There's really no need to mention it.

>>8093794
> if women are paid less why don't companies hire only women"
Humor me. Why does this not make sense, and why does the gap disappear when controlling for variables of same position, same education, same experience and same hours?

File: MOLOTOV LGBT.png (124KB, 968x754px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 968x754px

>>8093875
Nope.
>>8093817
BTW can't you think of any legal, practical and philosophical objections to Obergefell?

>>8093890
Because the most plausible explanation for women being paid less than men for the same jobs is that their employers consider them less productive workers then men. Otherwise, they'd be willing to pay them more. So those same employers don't believe there would be any benefit to hiring more women, since they have the same ratio of wages to productivity as men.

>>8093885
>Based on what?
Their pay.

>>8093912
>BTW can't you think of any legal, practical and philosophical objections to Obergefell?
Not them, but I can, however accepting them would mean a net loss of rights for LGBT people, without providing any real benefits.

>>8093919
>assuming humans are rational

>>8093915
>the most plausible explanation for women being paid less than men
Is that controlling for the variables I outlined above, the gap either vanished completely or only marginally exists due to female hesitance to negotiate pay.

> that their employers consider them less productive workers then men.
So why hire them in the first place for those positions? If the prevailing aim of firms is to maximize profits, and if they -like you- are rational enough to believe in "gender equality"- then make use of feigned inequality to pay women less, why not hire only women?

Do you really believe if there is a real equality between the sexes in all matters, that corporations with large research departments wouldn't have taken note of that by now?

>>8093926
>assuming humans are so irrational that they would run their businesses into the ground just out of a specific homophobic spite that involves nothing else but paying gays less after still hiring them

What's wrong with your mind?

You're literally so unconnected to reality that the "why don't companies hire only women and pay less" meme applies to you.

.
>>8093922
At least you're honest about your aims.

>>8093941
>Is that controlling for the variables I outlined above, the gap either vanished completely or only marginally exists due to female hesitance to negotiate pay.
If you read the full sentence you'll note that this was in reference to the (conjectural) scenario of women being paid less than men FOR THE SAME WORK.

>So why hire them in the first place for those positions? If the prevailing aim of firms is to maximize profits, and if they -like you- are rational enough to believe in "gender equality"- then make use of feigned inequality to pay women less, why not hire only women?
Because they DON'T believe in gender equality. They believe that women are less productive then men, and so pay wages for both genders in proportion to their perceived labor value.

>>8093971
>she doesn't know that female-run firms pay women less too
>she doesn't know that self-employed women earn less too
or she pretends she doesn't...

>>8094016
>he thinks women can't be sexist against women
>he thinks customers are never sexist against women

>>8094036
At this point you are obviously just inventing whatever justification is needed for your victimhood dogma. Feminism truly is a religion.

>>8094044
>women are paid less than men
>can't explain why, but somehow "knows" it's definitely not sexism
If anyone here is a cultist, it's you.

File: tramp.piss.gif (2MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x480px

>>8093059
>things

>>8094049
There are plenty of obvious reasons that have been raised in this very thread.

You are the one dismissing all of them to claim it's always, in one way or another, sexism by someone.

When a feminist's only tool is a hammer, everything looks like the patriarchy.

>>8094085
>You are the one dismissing all of them to claim it's always, in one way or another, sexism by someone.
This isn't some random coincidence though, it's more than could be caused by sampling error. Women are being paid less by men. How is that not sexist?

File: addd2a8d77e8d3506648ea244a736eb4.jpg (42KB, 393x750px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 393x750px

>>8094085

>>8093971
>If you read the full sentence you'll note that this was in reference to the (conjectural) scenario of women being paid less than men FOR THE SAME WORK.

1.

You said
>the same jobs
which is not the same as
>the same job+the same specific position within a given 'job' (e.g. an RF Engineer I vs RF Engineer III)+ same education+same experience (both within the firm and the field)+same hours
which I noted here
>>8093890

2.
A am aware of the slight differential that sometimes exists when all of the above variables are controlled for.

3.
Post your data, and I'll post mine. Otherwise I'll consider you a troll doing the good work of shitting up this board even more.

>Because they DON'T believe in gender equality
Again
1.
Why wouldn't they believe in this, if gender equality in all areas is reality, why wouldn't that be reflected by the billions of dollars of research firms have collectively put in over the decades in maximizing labor productivity?

2.
Wouldn't it take more resources to keep the "secret of the reality of gender equality in all areas"
If some employers do actually find an epiphany in "the reality of gender equality in all areas" against the supposed grain of other corporations, wouldn't they make a killing maximizing labor productivity hiring only females, while keeping up the prevailing perceived value of labor?

3.
Why hasn't there been a mass class action lawsuit of union effort by now against this is your case is so airtight? Attorneys- both female and male- would make more money from such cases than they would covering up the supposed conspiracy.

>>8094049
>can't explain why, but somehow "knows" it's definitely sexism

Your hypothesis requires more variables working simultaneously, and Occam's Razor suggests the burden of proof is on you.

Post your data. I'll post mine.

>>8094101
Strawwomyn. Nobody said it was sampling bias. You're pretending to forget the very objections you were just debating higher in the thread.

Either you're an idiot or you're trying to take the rest of us for idiots.

Classic feminism.

We're done here if you're going to keep "debating" this way.

>>8094101
>Women are being paid less by men.
Post where you are getting this data from
Also post the data stratified by the variables I outlined.

>>8094166
>You're pretending to forget the very objections you were just debating higher in the thread.
What objections? Are you saying that acknowledging the logical implications of sexism contradicts the existence of sexism? That's not even coherent.

File: njvosce.jpg (13KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 323x323px

>>8094170
>Post where you are getting this data from
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit

>>8094209
>We're done here if you're going to keep "debating" this way.

>>8094238
Stop moving the goalposts. You gave me an article pointing to a DOL lawsuit against a specific company regarding a "disparity".

I want aggregate US-wide data, and again, stratified by the above variables.

As for the specific circumstance you linked:
>US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SUES GOOGLE INC. FOR COMPENSATION DATA

https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170104

>Full complaint
https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20162406_0.pdf

Neither the suit nor complaint mentioned evidence of Google's supposed "disparities". Those disparity complaints were suggested by the guardian to come from the court hearings and DOL investigations and should be understood as linked but separate DOL compliance investigations.


>“We found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty much across the entire workforce,” Janette Wipper, a DoL regional director, testified in court in San Francisco on Friday.

>Wipper said the department found pay disparities in a 2015 snapshot of salaries


>Reached for comment Friday afternoon, Janet Herold, regional solicitor for the DoL, said: “The investigation is not complete, but at this point the department has received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters.”

>Herold added: “The government’s analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”

>Labor officials detailed the government’s discrimination claims against Google at the Friday hearing

>>8093862
Chechnya basically pays homage to Moscow, if gay are being round up there is because Moscow allows it.

>>8094392
Why didn't google comply?
Well that's because
>Google initially complied with the request, sending data on the more than 21,000 employees it had in 2015. But OFCCP demanded more information for Google’s workforce the year prior, too, including employee names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses.

http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202783295173/Judge-Abruptly-Adjourns-Labor-Departments-Fight-with-Google?slreturn=20170312165021

Which details the "privacy issues" noted in the Guardian article.

>At trial, Jackson Lewis attorneys did not directly address Wipper’s gender pay disparity claims while she was on the stand. Instead, Sween argued that much of OFCCP’s requested data had no relevance as to how Google calculated compensation for its employees.

So what's probably going to happen is the DOL is going to rescind its first order for the 2014 data, and then make a new order with private info redacted. After that, proper compensation comparisons can be made.

>During a difficult cross-examination, Wipper struggled to concisely answer questions about the department’s audit procedures. But she shrugged off questions about her understanding of how Google sets compensation for its employees.
e.g.Let's sue first and ask questions later

>The compensation team does not see names, gender, race or ethnicity for applicants fresh out of college, Wagner said. And, likewise, job history, salary history and historical merit increases are not factors used in calculating compensation for any new Google attorney, Wagner said, fresh out of college or not.

If the Comp team is blind to this data, so to will the government be blind to this data.

As for the case itself, stop going to news outlets and keep updated straight from the source. The case name is

>OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Plaintiff,
v.
>GOOGLE INC., Defendant
As it stands now,before a verdict,we don't know anything one way or the other

>>8094459
>Allows it

>Putin uses this as a pretense to bring the hammer down on Chechnya again

Ha, look at Putin's warmongering!

>Putin does nothing
Ha, look at Putin's gaybashing!

File: russia16.jpg (112KB, 964x656px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 964x656px

>>8093817
>unlike you I have a moral code
So you really believe Russia is less moral than the West? Ever heard of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay or CIA 'black sites'? How many countries have NATO countries invaded illegally over the past few decades compared to Russia and her allies?

>>8094488
Invading evil countries is legitimate.

>>8093059
>straight people are asshats to lgbt people, case number 3012484732924e843927839283478932
And this is in any way surprising or unexpected?
I mean might as well save yourself the trouble and post cases where it doesn't happen.

File: 1487680606154.jpg (70KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 680x680px

>>8094576

>>8094576
>Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay or CIA 'black sites'
>Having to do with invading countries

>The Libyan government was inherently less evil than the destruction caused by the invasion or the rebel forces the U.S. supported
>>8094638
> post cases where it doesn't happen.
You mean the totality of voluntary transactions LGBT persons have with non-LGBT persons?

>>8094682
>You mean the totality of voluntary transactions LGBT persons have with non-LGBT persons?
Just because it's voluntarily, doesn't mean you're not being an asshat.

>>8094681
>implying the Normandy invasion was evil

>>8094682
>You mean the totality of voluntary transactions LGBT persons have with non-LGBT persons?
I mean cases where straight people are not barbaric asshats to lgbt people.
Like unicorns.

>>8094682
Read the last sentence of the post >>8094488 retard.

>>8094688 >>8094701

>Just because it's voluntarily, doesn't mean you're not being an asshat.
>I mean cases where straight people are not barbaric asshats to lgbt people.
So do you have anything quantifiable?
>implying the Normandy invasion was evil
I don't think you understand what just happened here.

1.
>>8093513

Russian apologists and Russia implied to be immoral
2.
>>8093588 >>8093862

Questioning the disproportionate focus on Russia
3.
>>8093817

Restatement that Russia and Russian apologists are lacking in a moral code

4.
>>8094488
Counter that the moral code of any nation and any nation's apologists is up for debate

5.
>>8094576
Implication that the moral code of the US is less debatable since they invade evil countries

6.
>>8094682
Counter that there are other actions besides the invasion of evil countries can be considered immoral

7.
>>8094688
Restatement of point 5

>>8094708
Depends what you mean by "illegally". International law is a tricky thing. Unlike law within states, which are generally universally understood by those in said states, laws between states are harder for those respective states to recognize or at least interpret the same way. Between 1991 and 2017 I would argue that NATO has been complicit in more "illegal" military actions.

>>8094823
>So do you have anything quantifiable?
The point is that there are no cases where straight people weren't asshats to lgbt people.
if there were, I would have seen it.

>>8094835
Let's be generous and say non-LGBT people outnumber LGBT people 9-1.

If every single straight person was an asshat to LGBT people, or if every interaction between a straight person and an LGBT person was marked by the former being hostile to the latter, it would be a lot more evident. If you compare the situations Saudi Arabia with Canada, the EU, or the US, you would notice a huge difference in treatment of the latter by the former.

>>8094823
>Between 1991 and 2017 I would argue that NATO has been complicit in more "illegal" military actions.
Irrelevant because >>8094576

>>8094823
>So do you have anything quantifiable?
Define quantifiable. Does kicking a gay couple out of a restaurant and saying "sorry, we don't serve gays here" meet your criteria for asshattery?

>Restatement of point 5
Incorrect. It's merely refuting the notion that "illegal invasion" is inherently immoral.

>>8094878
>it would be a lot more evident.
But it is evident.
>If you compare the situations Saudi Arabia with Canada
You're comparing a turd with toxic diarrhea.
In the end they're both still shit.

why do people respond to this shitpost thats made twice a week every single time its posted

>>8094882
>Restatement of point 5
>>8094893
>Does kicking a gay couple out of a restaurant and saying "sorry, we don't serve gays here" meet your criteria for asshattery?

I think it should be allowed but it's "asshattery". That said do you have data showing
>a
The total (or a good sample of the total)transactions between non-LGBT and LGBT people
>b
The subset of that total (or sample of the total) showing improprieties on the part of the non-LGBT party
?

I don't care much for your anecdotal evidence.
>>8094893
>It's merely refuting the notion that "illegal invasion" is inherently immoral.
The whole point of an "illegal" invasion is that it requires the infringement of national sovereignty +the destruction of lives and property by another nation on unfounded, fabricated and/or spurious bases. I consider such military options not only immoral, but the Emperor of Immorality.
>>8094901
>The treatment of gays in Canada is a turd
>The treatment of gays in Saudi Arabia is toxic diarrhea
Are you suffering from HIV-related cognitive impairment or is your sense of scale normally this shitty?

>>8094988
Point 5 is empty gibberish.

>>8094988
>The whole point of an "illegal" invasion is that it requires the infringement of national sovereignty +the destruction of lives and property by another nation on unfounded, fabricated and/or spurious bases. I consider such military options not only immoral, but the Emperor of Immorality.
So you think Operation Overlord was immoral? Sure, it is BY ITSELF IN ISOLATION an immoral ACTION, but in the grand scheme of things I'd say it was pretty clearly justified. Slavery is immoral, right? So if a nation was enslaving its people, would it not be justified to take military action against them to end slavery? If you would rather let others get away with gross immorality than engage in "dirty" actions to stop immoral behavior, then you're essentially condoning morality. A society must engage in self-policing or cease to exist as a society. If a society agrees to totally disavow the use of violence, it's only a matter of time before someone realizes that this means they can use violence to rob the society without any fear of retribution. It's a fallacy to assume everyone you will ever encounter will respect and acknowledge your human rights, and rights of any kind cease to exist if they are threatened and no one is willing to use equivalent or greater force to counter those threats.

>>8095252
*you're essentially condoning IMMORALITY

>>8093513
>anything milo says
cherry picking

>see other threads like this
Not a source.

>>8095252
Richard Perle pls.

>Slavery is immoral, right? So if a nation was enslaving its people, would it not be justified to take military action against them to end slavery?


If the argument is that
>[X]is immoral, right? So if a nation was [doing X to] its people, it is justified to take military action against them to end [X]
wherein X is anything as unethical or more unethical than slavery, then we would be constantly at war. Regimes worldwide are going to be enslaving, threatening, and murdering the people under their jurisdiction. Do you want to know something else? A good many people, probably billions, can't function without an authoritarian state to keep them in line. For these people, keeping the regime is a better, and more moral choice, than removing the regime.

>If you would rather let others get away with gross immorality than engage in "dirty" actions to stop immoral behavior, then you're essentially condoning morality
There is a reason the American and English legal systems, both stemming from common law, do not place any positive obligations on individuals or groups (unless they are specifically contracted for the purpose) to stop X. You would be holding everyone, everywhere, at all times, liable for not stopping X among anyone, anywhere, at any time.

> A society must engage in self-policing or cease to exist as a society.
Sure. So let the other nations sort it out for themselves. I imagine the various Caliphates used this very logic as a pretext to invade European land: we must help them come into submission to Allah, and we were granted the task of policing our brothers and sisters under Allah. It's not only invalid on its face, but it's further invalid when one considers the threshold for what needs to be policed is different in every society.

>>8095252


> If a society agrees to totally disavow the use of violence, it's only a matter of time before someone realizes that this means they can use violence to rob the society without any fear of retribution.
What are you talking about?
Just because we don't want to intervene in some failed state, doesn't mean we have absolved ourselves of all acts or threats of violence. Violence will still, does, and always has permeated every facet of life. Governments operate under the threat of violence. Property is protected under threat of violence. Bar interactions can resort to violence in a moment of looking someone the wrong way. We in the West may have outsourced violence to the State, private security firms, and select cases of individuals and property owners protecting their lives and property, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist where we are, and that we are not being "robbed". We are just being robbed in a more orderly manner with a greater degree of representation. In lower cultures, the robbery happens to occur more obviously.

De Maistre put it more eloquently:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/348754-in-the-whole-vast-dome-of-living-nature-there-reigns

> It's a fallacy to assume everyone you will ever encounter will respect and acknowledge your human rights
I never stated any such thing or anything that should allude to it.

>and rights of any kind cease to exist if they are threatened and no one is willing to use equivalent or greater force to counter those threats.
I think your main fallacy is that everyone is deserving, or capable of handling, the same rights (or amount of rights) that we do. There is a reason the topic of animal rights is wildly different from that of human rights.

>>8099130
>wherein X is anything as unethical or more unethical than slavery, then we would be constantly at war. Regimes worldwide are going to be enslaving, threatening, and murdering the people under their jurisdiction.
And that pretty much IS the reality of the world today, and throughout history, once you step outside of the first world bubble.

>Do you want to know something else? A good many people, probably billions, can't function without an authoritarian state to keep them in line. For these people, keeping the regime is a better, and more moral choice, than removing the regime.
Thus you accept the premise that immoral acts are justified if the alternative would involve greater immorality.

>There is a reason the American and English legal systems, both stemming from common law, do not place any positive obligations on individuals or groups (unless they are specifically contracted for the purpose) to stop X. You would be holding everyone, everywhere, at all times, liable for not stopping X among anyone, anywhere, at any time.
There's a difference between legal liability and moral obligation.

>I think your main fallacy is that everyone is deserving, or capable of handling, the same rights (or amount of rights) that we do. There is a reason the topic of animal rights is wildly different from that of human rights.
I never implied that every being deserves the same rights, merely that rights will cease to have meaningful existence if they are not defended with force.

File: The-Better-Angels-of-Our-Nature.jpg (38KB, 300x449px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 300x449px

>>8100201
>And that pretty much IS the reality of the world today, and throughout history, once you step outside of the first world bubble
So how is it our job to stop or prevent X worldwide? The US barely has that obligation toward its ow allies. X has been decreasing just fine on its own over the course of human history.

>Thus you accept the premise that immoral acts are justified if the alternative would involve greater immorality
All other things being equal, and with no externalities.
A sees B about to stab C? A shoots B to save C. I consider that justified.
A sees B ruling over C in an authoritarian fashion, simultaneously executing political enemies and stamping out terrorists? A getting rid of B may lead to a worse condition for C. The situation is more complex, there are more variables, and greater risk for negative externalities, which is why different standards exist for invading nations than stopping individuals.

>There's a difference between legal liability and moral obligation
I'm saying the acceptance of the latter most probably leads to acceptance of the former. Furthermore when you say the US has the moral liability to invade countries ruled by evil regimes, you are saying that the government has the right to force its service-members to do so(when they otherwise would be fucking around on base somewhere), and force taxpayers to pay for it-which is well beyond the moral action of an individual or group voluntarily sopping some evil and requires further justification beyond the original act of war

>never implied that every being deserves the same rights, merely that rights will cease to have meaningful existence if they are not defended with force
Let's say a regime is imposing various rights abuses on a group of people. The regime is removed. The people are now "free", and blow everything up embroiling the US in decades long quagmires. By saying it was right to invade and "defend their rights with force",you're also implying they deserve them

>>8100906
Pinker is a feminist and his views on trans people aren't nice either.

>>8093059


http://www.roguemoney.net/2017/04/10/donald-trump-did-the-one-thing-to-lose-support-from-the-populist-movement-he-stopped-telling-the-truth/

Jared Kushner has been a Mossad agent with a direct line to BiBi for awhile, and indeed is the mole to control the Trump White House.

>>8100906
>By saying it was right to invade and "defend their rights with force",you're also implying they deserve them
So you're implying that there is no such thing as fundamental human rights? What you're describing are privileges, not rights.

>>8093059
>https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2017/04/report-gay-straight-pay-gap-3000-tech-jobs/


Look at the graph there is a bar for the preferred income ie. what the employee asked for and one for the offered income ie. what the company offered. Basically everyone is offered about what they ask for, except for cis women who benefit form female privilege so they get offered significantly more than they asked for.

>>8100906
Tl;dr but pinker my nigga

>>8093166
Does this mean as a bi guy, I'm only half as bad of a worker?

>>8100962
Thank God! I was worried it was Putin pulling the strings!

>>8094988
>is your sense of scale normally this shitty?
Haha nice pun.

But no I'm just being realistic.