SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is October 17th, 2021, 1:36am
Please login or register.
Was PortalRecent PostsHome Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
The scripts of the Halloween 2021 One Week Challenge


The January Project!
If you want access to the January Project, click here

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    Discussion of...     General Chat  ›  I'll just leave this one here... Moderators: bert
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 3 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    I'll just leave this one here...  (currently 5122 views)
Zack
Posted: May 21st, 2021, 3:46pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
4021
Posts Per Day
0.71

Quoted from Grandma Bear

Which is kind of what the OP was about. People are tuning out. The other point made in the video was not that people tune out because of wokeness, but rather they are not doing it the right way. They are shoehorning in these ideas where they feel forced. People, women and men both,  love to watch a female hero. Then why did Black Christmas and Ghostbusters fail? Because they didn't EARN it. Which is why my first post in this thread mentioned, Clarice Starling, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and QT's amazing The Bride. They earned our "worship". They struggled and rose to the challenges. Same reason we love Rocky. In a Disney movie, Rocky would have been born a prince and his skills would already be there, they would just need to be honed. Third point in the OP was that it's fine to be a feminist. Nothing wrong with it at all. It's to be preferred, IMO, but that doesn't mean women need to push men down at any given opportunity. That just makes you a crummy human, which is not desired by anyone.


Concur!  


WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 105 - 238
Rob
Posted: May 21st, 2021, 8:17pm Report to Moderator
New


Posts
131
Posts Per Day
0.12

Quoted from Rob
Do you trust the side which renames or the side that ends renaming?


Sorry, Steve. My posts earlier were not directed at you in particular. They were just some thoughts I was posting in general. I realize now that it looks like I was responding to your earlier comments, but I was just spitballing in general. But thank you for commenting.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 106 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 7:06am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38
Wow, this one moved on a bit since last logging in.

There appears to be some cross purposes on what "woke" actually is, how it impacts film, how it has proliferated, what disagreeing with it means, and what difference is it actually making.

So this is my take.

There seems a reasonably broad agreement that "woke-ism" is a shit show. It has many names, including "radical leftism", "far left", and so on. It's a slippery term, and is used interchangeably with those just mentioned, but is used by liberals to describe a strain of illiberal, ideological dogma that rejects evidence-based approaches, free speech and the belief we should treat one another as individuals.

The original term has been co-opted by 'both sides', but it was always a bit wanky and vague: to be alert to racial and social injustice. Or, in other words, to be awake to the underlying causes of what perpetuates unfairness. So far, so bland. Because it's essentially meaningless to be alert unless you're specifying what the causes are, and in turn, what you're alert to.

It was always an empty vessel, into which ideas such as intersectionality and positionality, and critical race theory have placed roots. Over the years, this has adapted to include subsequent waves of feminism (which reject second wave feminism, the liberal version the vast majority of people support), trans activism, postcolonial theory, fat studies, far left economics, and a general grievance politics that places straight, white men at the top of the evil tree.

The first co-opting of this term in the recent past came from BLM, and in response to this, conservatives have adopted it and used it as a tool to make their own political points.

So when I am talking woke, I am talking about ideas that place lived experience > evidence, cancel culture > free speech, cultural appropriation > freedom, idelological dogma > intelligence.

Let's look at some examples of woke-ism:

Cultural appropriation: https://www.huffingtonpost.co......96a348181?ri18n=true

This is, frankly, absurd.

Cancel culture: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

We all know it's happening. Cancel culture isn't just ensuring an individual never works again. It's about throttling ideas outside the ideological dogma from gaining oxygen, and forcing a set of ideas as unchallengable to the masses, with any disagreement or questioning seen as unequivocal evidence of multiple -isms.

This letter includes names such as, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and Garry Kasparov. Hardly conservative firebrands.

Safe spaces, segregation, race essentialsm: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-columbia-university-graduation-based-race-identity-1576567

This is backward, ugly and it's not conservative reaction to reject this.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/.....terviews/5192857001/

When ideas successfully form in people's minds, they're able to unlock, justify and embolden implicitly held prejudices. Lori Lightfoot clearly has prejudice in heart. This action isn't helping anyone. It's about retribution. It's ugly.

These are just some examples of the illiberal climate. I could be here all day.

But how does this impact film?

Film doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's operating in a society preaching tolerance whilst practicing intolerance, evangelising inclusion whilst forcing exclusion and painting all criticism of woke ideas as evidence of its thesis.

It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive to unity, tolerance and building a fairer world for all.

To make films highlighting racial or gender disparities isn't woke. That's liberalism. That's part of what film is about. The reality is films in the recent past, such as "Brokeback Mountain" or "Boyz n The Hood" wouldn't be made in the current day. They'd be beholden to strict woke dogma about how a gay man or black man should be, how their place in society is framed exclusively in relation to white supremacy and the characters would be cookie cutters capable only of serving the politics, rather than a unique creation inhabiting a complex world.

We want films exploring the broad array of cultures, peoples, and ideas, where the intention isn't pushing bullet points of 'representation', or serving political goals, but broadening the canvas of all of our lives.

To make films preaching a singular message (we live in a patriarchal white supremacy) where refusal to acknowledge this truth (a "truth" not supported by facts or evident beyond the ideological dogma) is evidence we live in a patriarchal white supremacy is unsurprisingly rejected by most. Inherent in this is a deep dislike of the everyday person, and contempt for their intellect and morals. There's a belief of moral and intellectual superiority in preaching in woke films, or planted woke messages embedded. The subtext is: we have all the answers, no debate required, now shut up and take the medicine.

The most frustrating element of woke-ism is how it has branded all attempts to fight racism (an essential cause) as 'woke', and everything else to be racist.

So, naturally, some are reluctant to speak against woke-ism, because to do so is to be racist. Conservatives have had much more courage in rejecting this asinine framing, and liberals have been too craven to speak up.

An embodiment of this insanity is Kendi's absurd anti-racism doctrine, where he eliminates 'not racist' as an option, leaving us with two options: racist and anti-racist. If people don't read the book (you really should), they're accessing the surface language, and think, sure, why wouldn't I be antiracist, while never understanding what anti-racism actually embodies. The most egregious example would be Kendi's implementation of an unelected anti-racism body, which would sign off on all government policy to ensure compliance with doctrine. Read the book if you haven't.

Books such as "How to be an antiracist" and "White Fragility" have been spectacularly successful in spreading the woke evangel, as have news outlets like The New York Times and CNN, which were sadly broken during the Trump years. Another organ for getting these simplistic, destructive ideas across is Hollywood.

And it is rootiong pernicious bullshit like what the video highlights:

- Women can only be strong by standing in opposition to men
- Racism can only be eradicated by "diversity guidelines"
- Trans rights can only be granted by eliminating science
- Disabled people can only be freed if abled bodied people don't play disabled roles
- Gay men and lesbians can only be liberated if straight people are struck off the list to play gay or lesbian roles

And on and on. All of it moving away from what film is about: entertaining people, telling compelling stories and giving us new worlds to explore.

Society is as fractured as at any point in living memory, and one of the primary arteries for this is the vacuum created by 9/11, Iraq, the GFC, where we have had our faith in an overarching narrative fractured. It has allowed false prophets with their nasty little ideas to divide people, and this comes from left and right. As a society, we have no problems calling this out on the right, but there's always been a reluctance to do so on the left, because of the false notion all left wing ideas are cuddly and well-meaning.

We need to get back to evaluating ideas, and not the people pushing them, desperately scouring for motives.

So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message.

It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on.

In a liberal democracy, we should listen to a wide array of ideas, seek to understand those ideas (as opposed to framing them conveniently for debate) and desire to bring everyone in a big tent together, where we reject identity bona fides in favour of embracing indivuduality.

I could go on much longer, but won't. These are just some of the thoughts I wanted to get out. There are more I'll wish I added when they pop up later, but eventually these ideas will start to formulate on my upcmomng podcast.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 107 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 10:02am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38
This isn't new, but if you haven't seen it, there's little out there that better sums up what's going on.



Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 108 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 10:25am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38
As for criticisms of Jordan Peterson.

This is well known now, but if you haven't watched this, please do.

It serves as the perfect articulation of when people try and distort him, and fall flat on their face.

Jordan Peterson is one of the most misinterpreted figures in populart culture today. Certain sections of the left hate him because they can't debate him, and he has a backbone. Incapable of countering his points, they instead try and mock him and / or demonise him. This video is that attempt shown up for what it is.

It's encouraging to see young kids in their late teens and early 20s coming into contact with him for the first time, because it's a breath of fresh air with all of the stifling of freedom of thought placed on them.



Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 109 - 238
Zack
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 10:52am Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
4021
Posts Per Day
0.71
Thanks for sharing, Andrew! Keep'em coming.


WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 110 - 238
Max Ruddock
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 11:51am Report to Moderator
New



Location
UK
Posts
375
Posts Per Day
0.18

Quoted from Andrew
Wow, this one moved on a bit since last logging in.

There appears to be some cross purposes on what "woke" actually is, how it impacts film, how it has proliferated, what disagreeing with it means, and what difference is it actually making.

So this is my take.

There seems a reasonably broad agreement that "woke-ism" is a shit show. It has many names, including "radical leftism", "far left", and so on. It's a slippery term, and is used interchangeably with those just mentioned, but is used by liberals to describe a strain of illiberal, ideological dogma that rejects evidence-based approaches, free speech and the belief we should treat one another as individuals.

The original term has been co-opted by 'both sides', but it was always a bit wanky and vague: to be alert to racial and social injustice. Or, in other words, to be awake to the underlying causes of what perpetuates unfairness. So far, so bland. Because it's essentially meaningless to be alert unless you're specifying what the causes are, and in turn, what you're alert to.

It was always an empty vessel, into which ideas such as intersectionality and positionality, and critical race theory have placed roots. Over the years, this has adapted to include subsequent waves of feminism (which reject second wave feminism, the liberal version the vast majority of people support), trans activism, postcolonial theory, fat studies, far left economics, and a general grievance politics that places straight, white men at the top of the evil tree.

The first co-opting of this term in the recent past came from BLM, and in response to this, conservatives have adopted it and used it as a tool to make their own political points.

So when I am talking woke, I am talking about ideas that place lived experience > evidence, cancel culture > free speech, cultural appropriation > freedom, idelological dogma > intelligence.

Let's look at some examples of woke-ism:

Cultural appropriation: https://www.huffingtonpost.co......96a348181?ri18n=true

This is, frankly, absurd.

Cancel culture: https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/

We all know it's happening. Cancel culture isn't just ensuring an individual never works again. It's about throttling ideas outside the ideological dogma from gaining oxygen, and forcing a set of ideas as unchallengable to the masses, with any disagreement or questioning seen as unequivocal evidence of multiple -isms.

This letter includes names such as, Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie and Garry Kasparov. Hardly conservative firebrands.

Safe spaces, segregation, race essentialsm: https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-columbia-university-graduation-based-race-identity-1576567

This is backward, ugly and it's not conservative reaction to reject this.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/.....terviews/5192857001/

When ideas successfully form in people's minds, they're able to unlock, justify and embolden implicitly held prejudices. Lori Lightfoot clearly has prejudice in heart. This action isn't helping anyone. It's about retribution. It's ugly.

These are just some examples of the illiberal climate. I could be here all day.

But how does this impact film?

Film doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's operating in a society preaching tolerance whilst practicing intolerance, evangelising inclusion whilst forcing exclusion and painting all criticism of woke ideas as evidence of its thesis.

It would be funny if it wasn't so destructive to unity, tolerance and building a fairer world for all.

To make films highlighting racial or gender disparities isn't woke. That's liberalism. That's part of what film is about. The reality is films in the recent past, such as "Brokeback Mountain" or "Boyz n The Hood" wouldn't be made in the current day. They'd be beholden to strict woke dogma about how a gay man or black man should be, how their place in society is framed exclusively in relation to white supremacy and the characters would be cookie cutters capable only of serving the politics, rather than a unique creation inhabiting a complex world.

We want films exploring the broad array of cultures, peoples, and ideas, where the intention isn't pushing bullet points of 'representation', or serving political goals, but broadening the canvas of all of our lives.

To make films preaching a singular message (we live in a patriarchal white supremacy) where refusal to acknowledge this truth (a "truth" not supported by facts or evident beyond the ideological dogma) is evidence we live in a patriarchal white supremacy is unsurprisingly rejected by most. Inherent in this is a deep dislike of the everyday person, and contempt for their intellect and morals. There's a belief of moral and intellectual superiority in preaching in woke films, or planted woke messages embedded. The subtext is: we have all the answers, no debate required, now shut up and take the medicine.

The most frustrating element of woke-ism is how it has branded all attempts to fight racism (an essential cause) as 'woke', and everything else to be racist.

So, naturally, some are reluctant to speak against woke-ism, because to do so is to be racist. Conservatives have had much more courage in rejecting this asinine framing, and liberals have been too craven to speak up.

An embodiment of this insanity is Kendi's absurd anti-racism doctrine, where he eliminates 'not racist' as an option, leaving us with two options: racist and anti-racist. If people don't read the book (you really should), they're accessing the surface language, and think, sure, why wouldn't I be antiracist, while never understanding what anti-racism actually embodies. The most egregious example would be Kendi's implementation of an unelected anti-racism body, which would sign off on all government policy to ensure compliance with doctrine. Read the book if you haven't.

Books such as "How to be an antiracist" and "White Fragility" have been spectacularly successful in spreading the woke evangel, as have news outlets like The New York Times and CNN, which were sadly broken during the Trump years. Another organ for getting these simplistic, destructive ideas across is Hollywood.

And it is rootiong pernicious bullshit like what the video highlights:

- Women can only be strong by standing in opposition to men
- Racism can only be eradicated by "diversity guidelines"
- Trans rights can only be granted by eliminating science
- Disabled people can only be freed if abled bodied people don't play disabled roles
- Gay men and lesbians can only be liberated if straight people are struck off the list to play gay or lesbian roles

And on and on. All of it moving away from what film is about: entertaining people, telling compelling stories and giving us new worlds to explore.

Society is as fractured as at any point in living memory, and one of the primary arteries for this is the vacuum created by 9/11, Iraq, the GFC, where we have had our faith in an overarching narrative fractured. It has allowed false prophets with their nasty little ideas to divide people, and this comes from left and right. As a society, we have no problems calling this out on the right, but there's always been a reluctance to do so on the left, because of the false notion all left wing ideas are cuddly and well-meaning.

We need to get back to evaluating ideas, and not the people pushing them, desperately scouring for motives.

So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message.

It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on.

In a liberal democracy, we should listen to a wide array of ideas, seek to understand those ideas (as opposed to framing them conveniently for debate) and desire to bring everyone in a big tent together, where we reject identity bona fides in favour of embracing indivuduality.

I could go on much longer, but won't. These are just some of the thoughts I wanted to get out. There are more I'll wish I added when they pop up later, but eventually these ideas will start to formulate on my upcmomng podcast.


Nazi!



Logged
Private Message Reply: 111 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:10pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6911
Posts Per Day
2.62

Quoted from Andrew
As for criticisms of Jordan Peterson.

This is well known now, but if you haven't watched this, please do.

It serves as the perfect articulation of when people try and distort him, and fall flat on their face.

Jordan Peterson is one of the most misinterpreted figures in populart culture today. Certain sections of the left hate him because they can't debate him, and he has a backbone. Incapable of countering his points, they instead try and mock him and / or demonise him. This video is that attempt shown up for what it is.

It's encouraging to see young kids in their late teens and early 20s coming into contact with him for the first time, because it's a breath of fresh air with all of the stifling of freedom of thought placed on them.



I have always found him intelligent - yet flawed. I believe he is an incomplete thinker.

As an example, the pay gap between men and women is primarily a result of gender.  

On a global basis, it is idiotic to argue that women are not suppressed primarily as a result of their gender.

As we sit today, that is far less the case in western/modern culture. When looking at differences in pay outcomes, Peterson injects nonsense like women make less because they are more agreeable. Yet there is zero evidence that agreeability empirically is an economic or business disadvantage.  There may be evidence that men view it as such. That is a far different thing.

Is it really all that complicated as Peterson would have you believe?

It ain't.

In the US example, women could even vote until 1920, As late as 1950, the workforce only consisted of 29% female and it wasn't until 2010 that they hit the 50% threshold. During that period of time, hiring and promotion considerations included the risk of losing women due to pregnancy/chid rearing.  Workplace social environments (golf clubs. men's clubs, the drink after work) often excluded women. It also included men's unscientific pre-conceptions of traits that constituted leadership.

Of course, that is changing. Women now hold around 39% of manager positions (although only 29% of executive-level and 2% of CEOs).  Looks low in abstract, but go back 30 years and it was nearly zero. Now here's the question - did Women become less agreeable over that time???? No evidence for that.

The more likely answer is that, over time, more and more women were historically into the workforce, they became managers and as they increased their ranks in management, horseshit and dated concepts like women are more agreeable and that is why they get paid less will fall to the wayside.

i.e., Women are not paid less than men because they have some inherent agreeability gene. Women are paid less than men because of long-term systemic gender bias that is not course corrected in a blink.  

Certainly, Peterson makes some valid points on wage gaps (e.g., you can't make macro comparisons without considering the same exact occupation, level of experience, etc) in calculating what that gap is. However --- I believe he is idiotic in inserting a "women are more agreeable" causality for that gap" than the far more rational - we are where we are because of past systematic gender bias rather than current gender bias.

Which why I don't care for the Peterson's of the world - I know that they are smarter than that  - but smart doesn't generate clicks and sell books. Controversy does.



My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 112 - 238
eldave1
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:18pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Location
Southern California
Posts
6911
Posts Per Day
2.62

Quoted Text
So, why is it Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is treated as noble, well-intentioned and decent, whereas an equivalent like Marco Rubio is treated as deceptive, ill-motivated and morally corrupt? The reason is people have allowed themselves to see a the messenger > message.

It's not that I even support either of the above; it's just so blatantly obvious that some would reject ideas they claim to support if another messenger took them on.


???????????

AOC is treated as effing Satan by the many. This isn't a AOC - vs - Rubio thing. It is a tribe vs tribe thing.  Neither tribe having a noble intent.

And ask yourself what is more damaging - some people aligning with AOC's thinking, or half the country thinking the election was stolen?  


My Scripts can all be seen here:

http://dlambertson.wix.com/scripts
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 113 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:40pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38

Quoted from eldave1


???????????

AOC is treated as effing Satan by the many. This isn't a AOC - vs - Rubio thing. It is a tribe vs tribe thing.  Neither tribe having a noble intent.

And ask yourself what is more damaging - some people aligning with AOC's thinking, or half the country thinking the election was stolen?  


Have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is thereís a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

So the lens with which the ideas are treated through is filtered by the messenger, and not the message.  


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 114 - 238
Robert Timsah
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:51pm Report to Moderator
New


Story Is Structure

Posts
291
Posts Per Day
0.06
They sure worried about those election audits out in Arizona, huh? And what about the 3-year Russia gate crap that turned out to be nonsense, all to derail Trump's presidency?

Multiple cities, states violated local election laws specifically and in the same manner in almost every battleground state.

Trump won almost EVERY bellwether county yet magically not only loses but loses every battleground.

Enjoy watching these forensic audits. The same people who told you Trump was a Russian agent, are the exact same entities telling you the Arizona audit is "a problem". You even have Perkins Coie down there.

I have little doubt that they utilized covid-19 in order to cheat and rig the election for Joe Biden but as always the hard part is proving it. Especially if the FBI is in on it.

People may say that's a conspiracy theory but the FBI was the ones who pushed the Russia gate b******* against Trump.

Then you have that truck driver talking about how he was driving ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Did the FBI investigate his claim? No. They harassed him. The lady's down in Georgia running the ballots after saying they had a water leak, were they ever investigated not that we know of. It went from a water leak, to a urinal, to earlier in the day. And that's what we call a cover story.

There are conspiracies. Epstein didn't kill himself. Aliens have probably been covered up for years. As we may be about to find out. As I like to say, my conspiracy theory is better than yours!


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 115 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:54pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38

Quoted from eldave1


I have always found him intelligent - yet flawed. I believe he is an incomplete thinker.

As an example, the pay gap between men and women is primarily a result of gender.  

On a global basis, it is idiotic to argue that women are not suppressed primarily as a result of their gender.

As we sit today, that is far less the case in western/modern culture. When looking at differences in pay outcomes, Peterson injects nonsense like women make less because they are more agreeable. Yet there is zero evidence that agreeability empirically is an economic or business disadvantage.  There may be evidence that men view it as such. That is a far different thing.

Is it really all that complicated as Peterson would have you believe?

It ain't.

In the US example, women could even vote until 1920, As late as 1950, the workforce only consisted of 29% female and it wasn't until 2010 that they hit the 50% threshold. During that period of time, hiring and promotion considerations included the risk of losing women due to pregnancy/chid rearing.  Workplace social environments (golf clubs. men's clubs, the drink after work) often excluded women. It also included men's unscientific pre-conceptions of traits that constituted leadership.

Of course, that is changing. Women now hold around 39% of manager positions (although only 29% of executive-level and 2% of CEOs).  Looks low in abstract, but go back 30 years and it was nearly zero. Now here's the question - did Women become less agreeable over that time???? No evidence for that.

The more likely answer is that, over time, more and more women were historically into the workforce, they became managers and as they increased their ranks in management, horseshit and dated concepts like women are more agreeable and that is why they get paid less will fall to the wayside.

i.e., Women are not paid less than men because they have some inherent agreeability gene. Women are paid less than men because of long-term systemic gender bias that is not course corrected in a blink.  

Certainly, Peterson makes some valid points on wage gaps (e.g., you can't make macro comparisons without considering the same exact occupation, level of experience, etc) in calculating what that gap is. However --- I believe he is idiotic in inserting a "women are more agreeable" causality for that gap" than the far more rational - we are where we are because of past systematic gender bias rather than current gender bias.

Which why I don't care for the Peterson's of the world - I know that they are smarter than that  - but smart doesn't generate clicks and sell books. Controversy does.



Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. Itís irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but itís all good. Everyone sees something different, and thatís fine.

The reason I posted that clip wasnít to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and itís cringeworthy to watch.

Petersonís position here is simple:

- There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as Ďmen get paid more than womení doesnít factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc.

So if youíre not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, itís a bogus statistic. Thatís not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, itís a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isnít the issue. Thatís a crude breakdown of his point.

Now if youíre comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and thereís a discrepancy, thatís a fair point of debate. Petersonís point is the debate and statement doesnít go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesnít exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 116 - 238
Zack
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 1:59pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
4021
Posts Per Day
0.71

Quoted from Andrew


Ocasio-Cortez is - rightly - mocked by the right, and many liberals (of left and right persuasion), but is presented in painfully flattering light in media. Regardless, my point is thereís a default where ideas presented from the left are prepackaged and assumed to be inherently decent, whereas on the right ideas are prepackaged and assumed to be indecent.

  


I couldn't agree more. Spot on, Dude.


WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 117 - 238
Andrew
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 2:01pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Posts
1772
Posts Per Day
0.38

Quoted from Robert Timsah
They sure worried about those election audits out in Arizona, huh? And what about the 3-year Russia gate crap that turned out to be nonsense, all to derail Trump's presidency?

Multiple cities, states violated local election laws specifically and in the same manner in almost every battleground state.

Trump won almost EVERY bellwether county yet magically not only loses but loses every battleground.

Enjoy watching these forensic audits. The same people who told you Trump was a Russian agent, are the exact same entities telling you the Arizona audit is "a problem". You even have Perkins Coie down there.

I have little doubt that they utilized covid-19 in order to cheat and rig the election for Joe Biden but as always the hard part is proving it. Especially if the FBI is in on it.

People may say that's a conspiracy theory but the FBI was the ones who pushed the Russia gate b******* against Trump.

Then you have that truck driver talking about how he was driving ballots from New York to Pennsylvania. Did the FBI investigate his claim? No. They harassed him. The lady's down in Georgia running the ballots after saying they had a water leak, were they ever investigated not that we know of. It went from a water leak, to a urinal, to earlier in the day. And that's what we call a cover story.

There are conspiracies. Epstein didn't kill himself. Aliens have probably been covered up for years. As we may be about to find out. As I like to say, my conspiracy theory is better than yours!


I donít personally subscribe to the Trump accusations of a stolen election.

However, I find it beyond frustrating that those who complain about it most are the same people most loudly claiming Russia stole the election 4 years before.

The hypocrisy is simply too much to bear.

Both sides of this issue are complicit in undermining the integrity of democracy, in my view.

Now it may be one or both are correct, but neither have been able to prove it, and like to use it to throw red meat to the base.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 118 - 238
Zack
Posted: May 24th, 2021, 2:01pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group


Don't get it right. Get it written.

Location
Kentucky
Posts
4021
Posts Per Day
0.71

Quoted from Andrew


Peterson is super smart. He is thoughtful, sincere and clearly cares about complexity. Itís irksome when this incredibly smart guy is framed as being ill-intentioned, or supposedly incomplete in his thinking, but itís all good. Everyone sees something different, and thatís fine.

The reason I posted that clip wasnít to necessarily debate the pay gap, but to highlight the brazen attempt to frame his positions in an ideologically convenient manner, which not only misrepresents his views, but is amusingly transparent in this case. Cathy Newman embarrassed herself in this, and itís cringeworthy to watch.

Petersonís position here is simple:

- There exists a gap in wages, but that this gap presented as Ďmen get paid more than womení doesnít factor in multivariate analyses, i.e. age, seniority, industry, personality types, etc.

So if youíre not breaking down your analysis to compare like for like, and only conduct univariate analysis, itís a bogus statistic. Thatís not remotely controversial. When you compare female nurses with male MDs at Goldman Sachs and use that to prove men get paid more than women, itís a ridiculous statement, because MDs get paid more than nurses. The core variable determining that pay discrepancy is the market, i.e. the wage value placed on the role. Gender isnít the issue. Thatís a crude breakdown of his point.

Now if youíre comparing male and female MDs at Goldman, and thereís a discrepancy, thatís a fair point of debate. Petersonís point is the debate and statement doesnít go that granular; it simply uses all data and makes a point that correlation is causation, which is intellectually deficient. None of which is to say sexism doesnít exist, but we have to deal with facts, and rigorous research methods, and not frivolous ideology.


Concur with this as well. Well said.  


WITCH HUNT - horror, 77 pgs

THE 1997 TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE - horror, 82 pgs

HERE COMES THE BOGEYMAN - horror, 24 pgs
Logged Online
Private Message Reply: 119 - 238
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    General Chat  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006