I think the difference with this site is that enough of us recognize that the world isn't black or white, but grey. It seems like most sites don't have the majority of people that think like that.
This is a big issue here, and something that I don't feel that many democrats seem to understand. It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs. It isn't sexist to acknowledge differences in the genders. It isn't islamophobic to see cultural issues with Islam that would cause integration issues, especially with a large influx of Islamic immigration.
Much of the issue here is because of lack of understanding of the perspective of the other side.
The big issue is the sheer amount of misinformation and falsehoods that the Trump demographic takes as truth. The lack of a good education-- and particularly the lack of a science education-- means most Trump voters are ill-equipped to distinguish fact from feel-good fiction.
That's factually wrong. Documented workers’ wages rise with increases in the share of undocumented workers in a worker’s county and employed by their employers.
Why? The law of comparative advantage says we get more productive when we have more trading partners, and the arrival of undocumented workers with limited English skills frees up low-skill American workers who can then specialize in tasks that require better English.
Absolutely true. And the first-past-the-post voting system in America amplifies the us-vs-them mentality that has created political gridlock for nearly a decade now.
Disagree. IRV introduces some bizarre nonlinearities in the voting space that could lead to shockingly unintuitive behaviour. See these voting simulations for an example:
> It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.
I don't disagree with your point but how many "hard working" Americans want to work the fields and kitchens of the country for low wages? What impact is the removal of cheap labour going to have on the cost of food?
The country is filled with them once you leave the city - and they all turned out to vote last night.
My first two jobs were seasonal work on a potato farm and then working on the line in a packing plant. Neither of them would be available to me, and certainly not at a living wage, with a continuation of open borders.
I can assure you that the 59-60 million people who voted for Trump do not all live in the countryside. The Trump voters also live right along with you, including in Silicon Valley. As mentioned before, they don't say anything because liberals immediately call them racist bigot white supremacists, even if they are an immigrant.
It looks like food prices would go up by about 16%[0], which I would be happy with if I knew that people were getting a fair wage for the labor. If there's a shortage of workers willing to work at such a low wage, then they need to raise wages.
And it's better for something to cost $11.60 and you have a minimum wage job than for that thing to cost $10 and you don't have any job. The difference is astronomical.
It doesn't matter how cheap the food is if you have to steal it because you don't have a job. And under-the-table wages aside, a white American dishwasher is not going to earn any more or less than a brown Mexican dishwasher.
I actually don't think Donald Trump is particularly more sexist than a randomly sampled American.
What I think is sexist is the outsized hate campaign that has dogged Hillary since she became first lady. She's not notably worse by any metric than John Kerry but she receives way more vitriol.
People were saying she was literally Satan. And Bernie voters were saying she was unacceptable due to being a corrupt sellout establishment candidate, but again... John Kerry didn't receive anywhere near the level of hate.
It's a tough issue to argue though, because I'm not saying it's black and white: I'm not saying haters would've supported her if she was a man. It's more of a matter of degree: the anger and malice toward her would've been less if she was a man. The tenor of people's opposition would've been different.
For that reason I don't think you're awful if you don't believe me. There's enough ambiguity that I think you can say "let's call it an open question and focus on more irrefutable examples of sexism".
But the reason so many women are upset is this is exactly the kind of sexism they face evety day: subtle sexism that is difficult to prove, but when experienced over several decades feels undeniable.
For example when he criticized Megyn Kelly as having "blood coming out of her wherever" implying that she asked him a tough question because she was having her period.
The Hillary narrative would have you believe that because he is a man that he is inherently sexist. Only a woman could represent women effectively. And of course forget that Trump had a woman running his campaign and has many high-paid women helping to run his businesses. Many people find the truth inconvenient, hence the downvotes.
Trump doesn't use certain dog whistles and lacks the feminist shibboleths. That doesn't make him sexist. He has no problem hiring or working with women.
The only sexism I've seen this election has been from the hillary camp. Wouldn't it be nice to have a female president? winkwink
>It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.
I'm curious, what jobs have they taken away? This was my father in laws biggest beef next to terrorism. He has been retired for close to a decade and although he is not the 1%, he is for sure in the 2-3%.
I asked him if he was thinking about taking a job at the local car wash or visiting Syria, Afghanistan, or Iraq soon?
I haven't seen a white guy cut my grass or dry my car or roof my house or lay brick or stone in at least 25 years. I actually tried to help the Mexican roofers by carrying a bundle of shingle up the ladder and almost had my wife call 911.
Is there illegal immigrants working as doctors, dentists, data scientists, engineers, nurses, financial professionals, police, fireman, teachers, computer programmers, IT Specialists, etc?
> It wasn't a race issue, it was an immigration issue since many illegal immigrants have taken American jobs.
How come a con man who employees illegal immigrants at his construction projects and manufactures his own products in China & Bangladesh is the solution for it?
I feel that it's less about going to a 1950s ideal and more about giving more opportunities to the uneducated rural people who have been extremely hurt by globalism.
Because the argument is that men aren't capable of doing so [0]. I don't believe that is the case, but it is the argument being hinted at. It is also a very common argument.
Maybe not so much in games - but in almost every other field where devs work - they have a lot of influence over the product. So it's part of the issue.
Devs are usually the one's founding the company ...
But gaming, I guess not so much. So maybe less of a requirement.
But remember that most 'great things' come from inspiration all around. Game devs might 'love games' and put that 'extra umph' into it to make the game great. The little tweaking that's inspired.
My suspicion, without a background in marketing, is that marketing concepts towards males are more clearly identified in terms that easily apply to gaming. Men like sports: winning, fighting, competition, stealth, dominance. Some men don't like sports: politics, dominance, competition, exploring.
I recall from a psychology lecture in one of my courses, many years ago, that women tend to play games like the Sims as if they were dollhouses, building their dream lives. On the other hand, my ex- used to play it in a masculine fashion, torturing the Sims by shutting them in a room without a door or a toilet, sending them for a swim and removing the ladder, things like that.
Exactly what this means, I'm not sure, but I think it is a piece of the puzzle.
I don't know if it's sexist. If it's a fact, it's just an observation. Facts should ideally not be sexist (although I understand the can of worms such a statement might open).
I'm inclined to believe that gaming in general is tilted towards the things that men like (whether culturally or biologically). And I'd welcome game producers/financiers/whatever to invest in games that offer things that traditionally non-gamers would be into, but I can also understand that those kinds of projects are riskier than going for an existing market.
I am of the opinion that men and women are biologically different, and this leads to psychological differences that create social and cultural differences between the genders. However, unlike many, I don't believe that the differences between the genders are evil, and I don't believe that we should be breaking down all of those differences in the name of equality.
With that said, if you see potential in the market, by all means make a video game targeted towards everyone & get rich. That is your right.
Maybe it is? It's hard to say, because it depends on what kind of question you're asking.
Are you saying that the statement "games are made for guys" requires you to first believe that there are qualities of games that men inherently like more than women?
Or are you asking about an observational statement that games seem to be designed to target men as buyers by catering to traditionally male interests?
I think you could make a case that the implied belief in the first statement is itself sexist, but I don't think that's what the parent poster meant. We could probably have an interesting discussion on the subject, and I'd be curious if there is any rigorous research on the topic.
But I think the parent poster made the second observation, which can be true or false independent of any judgement of sexism.
Certain free-to-play MMORPG's with fantastically revealing female armors and very well endowed female characters are very clearly catering to a predominantly male audience. It doesn't take too much interpretation to call them sexist by the "I wouldn't want my daughter to grow up in a world that looked like that" standard. You can disagree with me on whether that actually constitutes "sexist," but I think we'd generally agree that those portrayals of women are problematic.
It's more subtle in most games, but I think there's still a point there about designing games for the existing hugely predominantly male gamer demographic.
Honestly, I agree with the statement that games cater towards men more, but I like playing devil's advocate. I personally believe that psychological differences between men and women make men enjoy video games more, and it's not something that we should attempt to break down because of equality. There are differences between genders in every culture of the world. Instead of trying to blur the line between the genders, I feel we should embrace and celebrate those differences.
> I think we'd generally agree that those portrayals of women are problematic.
Why is it problematic if a game does this? Is it because it makes the game player sexist? If so, then it has the same argument that people make against violent video games in that it makes people violent, even though the data doesn't back that up.
Only if the idea that tampons are made for women is sexist. It's just an absorbent object, and you're free to use it how you like.
These products weren't things that exploded from a volcano, or discovered in the center of an apple pulled from a tree. They were created by people to attract other people enough to surrender cash.
Video games aren't made out of thin air. There is an art and a science to video game creation that involves novelty, difficulty, and mastery. That takes a lot of planning and designing. Obviously that means that video games need to be designed BEFORE they're created. ;)
The implication behind this article is that any sort of unrest would be completely Donald Trump's fault. But what people seem to forget is that Donald Trump has a reason for waiting to cede the presidency. Gore lost the election even though he got the popular vote. There were massive irregularities in the Democratic primaries, and the media has been biased and partisan, mostly in favor of Hillary Clinton, since the beginning.
I understand why some people are afraid of his hesitance. I hope they at least understand the reason he's doing so.
He had an uphill climb in that the establishment party organs were aligned with Hillary, but that's been true for every insurgent candidate in every election ever. In the end he did better than anyone who supported him (including the man himself, I suspect) would have expected when he launched his campaign.
You're right to ask for citation. Put simply, there is no definitive proof that the primary was rigged per se, but there were consistent differences between the exit polling & the voting results. Almost all of the differences were in Secretary Clinton's favor, and these discrepancies were not found in the Republican primaries, nor were they found in the '08 primaries.
In the 2000, Bush v Gore election the result was contested afterwards when there was some doubt over who carried Florida and it came down to some hundreds of votes.
Trump is claiming in advance that he will "have to see" whether he will accept the result or not. I think that's quite different.
With the Bush v Gore election, nothing like it had happened before. Of course he wouldn't contest it beforehand. Now there has been a history of it happening. It definitely makes more sense to hesitate now.
Nothing is keeping women from going into tech right now. In fact, there are all sorts of incentives for them to go into tech and they're STILL not going. I think it's time to accept the fact that men and women are psychologically different in some ways. That's not a good or bad thing, it's just reality.
When I was in school in the 1980s, women got about 37 percent of computer science degrees and law degrees then. Law went up to 47 percent now. In medicine, we were at 28 percent in 1984. That’s gone up to 48 percent. Computer science went from 37 percent to 18 percent.
That is a good point. I've tried to think of a good argument against this, but I haven't been able to come up with one. It's an odd statistic, since the ratio of women to men in college has been going up & women have been encouraged to go into STEM fields for a while now.
> I've tried to think of a good argument against this, but I haven't been able to come up with one.
Why are you spending so much time trying to think of an argument against it? Is it really so hard to consider that women are now leaving programming in droves (particularly in the few years after college), in no small part due to the overwhelming number of men who tell them, day in and day out, that they need to accept the fact that they're "psychologically different" and that's "just reality"?
We encourage women to go into STEM fields and then make them feel like freaks a few years later when they actually try to make a career of it. Especially as they start doing more advanced work in the company, being promoted (and especially in specific IT fields), it becomes much easier to just throw their hands up and say "I'm so done with this shit. Peace." than to be BOTH a great programmer and a constant target/poster child of gender politics (both well-intentioned and otherwise). It's a positive feedback loop.
I tried thinking of a good argument against it because it seems unintuitive. From everything I see, women are ENCOURAGED to go into STEM fields. They are significantly more likely to be hired and promoted when compared to their male counterparts, and get all sorts of support and scholarships.
Are you suggesting there aren't any psychological differences between men and women? Because testosterone has been shown to cause people to be more competitive, assertive, and violent. That's a pretty good indicator of a difference in psychology.
We are of course talking about trends here. There are of course individual exceptions to the norm.
> there are all sorts of incentives for them to go into tech and they're STILL not going
You don't think it's worth at least looking at why that is? What does "psychologically different" mean? If we're saying they are genetically less disposed to enter tech as career then no, I doubt there's a lot we can do. But something tells me that isn't the case at all.
What if they're "psychologically different" because our education system and culture drives them away from engineering-y, logical careers and into more personable, "soft" industries? Shouldn't we be able to take a second look at that culture and that education system?
Note that this goes both ways. How many boys out there would make fantastic fashion designers, carers or teachers, but are dissuaded from those careers because they're not "masculine" enough?
So what if the differences in gender are because of educational and cultural reasons? There's always this assumption that all differences between genders are terrible, but I don't really see why this is the case.
Honestly, the only reason I see this being done is so the labor pool for tech workers can go up(and thus pay would go down).
