this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
357 points (88.4% liked)
Technology
59323 readers
5331 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because women never need visas? Are never foreign or desperate?
The bottom line is that, as usual, these men are pushing their way into a place that isn't theirs. They are free to make their own spaces... but wait, everywhere else IS their space. It's not like there aren't dozens of job fairs and resources, (some free!) in their area that are open and dominated by men. They feel entitled to invade what little space women have carved out for themselves so they can feel safe.
It doesn't matter why they are entitled. The fact that they spent $600 when they are theoretically desperate just makes them foolish as well as entitled. But I really don't expect you to understand any of that.
Of course, but how is this relevant. The argument there is that we are not talking about the tech-bros dominating the tech field, we are talking about a specific subgroup of the male population, the outliers, which means using the average male statistics to deliberate on this specific people misses at least partially the point.
This is what really puzzles me. This kind of argument is unacceptable in any other context, because it completely ignores the necessary conditions and balance of power needed to "create your own space". It's like saying "women can create their own tech companies and hire only women there". It doesn't make sense because it would be ignoring the fact that to create a company you need network, you need resources, capital, and if you are already marginalized, you can't just do that. I would suggest that foreigners out of a job are not in the material condition to organize a hundreds of thousands-people fair with huge sponsors.
So that they can find a job*
I am not sure how you are not seeing the foolish attempt exactly as an expression of that desperation, but as an expression of entitlement.
Why do you need to assume that it's a matter of understanding and not a matter of simply having different opinions and views?
We aren't talking about outliers. That was a theory you put forward, but it's a strawman. We don't know that the men who took over the women's job fair were outliers. At the end, we're simply talking about men who, once again for whatever reason, felt entitled to lie their way into a space that isn't meant for them, to the point where they dominated the event.
And even if they were outliers, this space wasn't for them. Full stop. Desperation doesn't qualify someone to run roughshod over the boundaries of others, and to lie to do so. That is pure entitlement. I've been desperate, and I used the resources open to me. I didn't lie to access resources I wasn't entitled to.
This is relevant because if you understood what it was like to not have safe places, you wouldn't be justifying the bad behavior of those who felt entitled to overrun someone else's. Because you don't understand, your opinion and view isn't as relevant.
This has nothing to do with a strawman. It's literally an educated guess based on the limited information available.
I am not sure how many of those lied. Some did, and that is shitty, but the event is technically open to men too, men have always participated to that event, apparently. See for example this from 2017. So I am not even sure that lying was a determining factor.
You will forgive me, but your personal anecdote in a completely different context doesn't count as a solid argument.
You are talking about a conference event with hundreds of thousands of attendees, sponsored by some of the biggest, and evil, companies on the planet...apologies, but this rhetoric of a safe space sounds out of place for this particular example. Also, there is no point to use this personal moral arguments, because they are useless. "If you would understand desperation/risk of deportation/whatever then..." is not an argument for anything. I don't know what you understand or don't, let's stick to the opinions we actually support?
This is your tautology, where you say that if A then B, and then B then C, but A is your pure assumption. Ex falso quodlibet, you can build any argument this way.
So when you make a wild guess it's "an educated guess based on limited information," but you want to be taken seriously when you refuse to engage when someone points out that your point is irrelevant, even if true?
Get out of here. This conversation is fruitless and exhausting. Feel free to soak in your own perspective and refuse to see another point of view. No skin off my nose.
It's not a wild guess, and you are not willing to admit that simply because it's not convenient to your arguments. I explained what the basis for that guess is, I didn't flip a coin, but made a deduction. There is a margin of error, for sure, and I might be wrong, but I would take that bet. I also did not refuse to engage in anything, I considered (almost/) every point every single person made in every comment (despite the huge amount of repetition), so what are you talking about? "Pointing out" also doesn't mean anything, I explained my thoughts using that "guess" as the basis to make a difference that you were not making (i.e., between the average man and a subset of men with different properties - and privileges/power in this case). You disagreeing on this does not make it invalid, it simply means that we might have different opinions. I for once disagree with "Desperation doesn’t qualify someone to run roughshod over the boundaries of others, and to lie to do so. That is pure entitlement." as I don't interpret what happened in that way at all, for example. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is a judgment call, it is not something we can observe with a microscope and determine objectively, this whole topic is wholly influenced by culture, background, experiences etc. You failing to see that and acting in this very dogmatic way is fairly surprising.
Nobody is forcing you to discuss if you don't want to, but you don't get to decide jack for what others should do. If you feel like, block me or drop the conversation, as apparently this comment already shows that you have no desire to engage honestly, considering you ignored every single point I made, not viceversa.