lichess.org
Donate

Breaking The Silence Online

#414
@TurtleMat said in #410:
> No it means that gender biais impact womens choice (written white on black, I don't know how I can make it better for you to understand), which in turn impacts pay gap. The origin of it is still gender biais. again, written right there.

What do you mean by "gender bias"? Are you saying that prejudice is involved? There is nothing wrong with personal choice.

@TurtleMat said in #410:
>You have done nothing of the sort. If anything, you showed me that you don't know how science works.

I just showed you strong evidence that there is no significant gender pay gap.

Here's another study showing the same thing: scholar.harvard.edu/files/bolotnyy/files/be_gendergap.pdf

@TurtleMat said in #410:
>name one that is better documented than patriarchy. you should have one, you repeated again and again that there are "other factors". Gimme just a single one - Again, better documented than the effects of patriarchy.

I said in my post that men work a higher amount of hours per week than women. This is from United States data reported by the BLS. How much more documentation do you need? It is a fact. Do you think that people who work 41 hours a week should be paid exactly the same as people who work 36 hours a week? So there I just gave you one. Now please explain how the patriarchy causes a wage gap.

@TurtleMat said in #410:
>that's true. but somehow it seems that women are always on the wrong side of the "potentially non correlated" stuff. And this to the point that it can not be a coincidence.

Women are always on the "wrong side" because of misleading information being pushed such as the wage gap. I suspect to push an ideological narrative. Internal audits at big firms have showed no discrimination against women when it comes to pay. Show me ONE company that has a job posting that has different pay for men and women. Just one. I have NEVER seen it.

@TurtleMat said in #413:
> A link to a Peterson video without a single thought from you. Nice. That's a new low in this discussion. I'm well aware of this person, their arguments, their misogyny.

Ad hominem argument. Arguments should stand on their evidence/merit and not simply based on who said them.
#415
@TurtleMat said in #413:
> A link to a Peterson video without a single thought from you. Nice.
> That's a new low in this discussion.
> I'm well aware of this person, their arguments, their misogyny.
> Hell I most likely know more about Petersons ideas than you.
> You should start thinking by yourself instead of repeating what this guy regurgitates. Why don't you give me some Andrew Tate while you're at it?
> I have to thank you, I didn't expect that, that made me blow some air through my nose.
As expected misogyny is the answer for everything..
If you had a slice of logic and open mindedness you should have by now find answers to your questions. The start would be to tackle the arguments presented in these videos even if you think the person expressing them is biassed, instead of getting away with personal attacks to me and other persons here in this forum you don't even know, and which shows much about your character. Instead you put labels on people and decide that their arguments not worth to discuss because that suits you well.
Oh wait, that sounds like the bullying all these people here talking about making them not wanting to play chess.. you see the irony?
So i should thank you for giving these people the chance to see who they are talking to.
#416
@replaced said in #414:
> What do you mean by "gender bias"?
Wait, this comes from your own link, are you saying you didn't understand your own sources?

You still haven't shown me a single scientific argument. Your "evidence" is flawed on so many levels. Your "other study" is no more a scientific study than the first one. Plus, even your source, which is most likely biaised towards your view, states that this 1percent is significant. ON THE FIRST PAGE.

And it's still just for the US, so you know, not that representative.

@replaced said in #414:
> I said in my post that men work a higher amount of hours per week than women. This is from United States data reported by the BLS. How much more documentation do you need? It is a fact. Do you think that people who work 41 hours a week should be paid exactly the same as people who work 36 hours a week? So there I just gave you one. Now please explain how the patriarchy causes a wage gap.
Gladly.
Yes, one of the reasons why the raw and corrected numbers are different is the amount worked. Then again, this is due to patriarchy. Or do you want to disagree that women make most of the care work FOR FREE ? which of course let them with less time and energy to work the extra 5 hours. So, next try, give me ONE factor that adresses both numbers and don't comes from patriarchy.

@replaced said in #414:
> Women are always on the "wrong side" because of misleading information being pushed such as the wage gap.
So women are just lying about the whole thing, and that's where sexism comes from?

@replaced said in #414:
> Show me ONE company that has a job posting that has different pay for men and women. Just one. I have NEVER seen it.
that still just adresses the corrected number and not the raw one. Plus, the difference for equivalent post doesn't have to happen at the same compagny.

You have trouble with logic. And to not know the facts.

About calling Peterson a mysoginist, that's not an ad hominem attack. That's a fact.
#417
It is definitely not an ad hominem attack to say that one is already familiar with Mr. Peterson's arguments, one of which is that sexual harassment in the workplace would be less frequent if women would stop wearing makeup and high heels.
#418
@GarrettZX9 said in #415:
> As expected misogyny is the answer for everything..
Yeah, that's kid of the subject of this whole discussion, and some people still seem to deny it exists...

@GarrettZX9 said in #415:
> If you had a slice of logic and open mindedness you should have by now find answers to your questions.
Sure, because this one 20 min video that you postet has the inconditional answers to my questions.

@GarrettZX9 said in #415:
> The start would be to tackle the arguments presented in these videos even if you think the person expressing them is biassed, instead of getting away with personal attacks to me and other persons here in this forum you don't even know, and which shows much about your character. Instead you put labels on people and decide that their arguments not worth to discuss because that suits you well.

No the start would be to make your own arguments instead of posting a video. Otherwise I just could post a debunk video of this one, but we're not on youtube here.

@GarrettZX9 said in #415:
> Oh wait, that sounds like the bullying all these people here talking about making them not wanting to play chess.. you see the irony?

If you feel bullied because I don't accept blindly arguments from a known misogynist (Peterson) and don't give you an essay debunking a no-effort post of yours, well, feel bullied and just report me.

@GarrettZX9 said in #415:
> So i should thank you for giving these people the chance to see who they are talking to.
My pleasure.
#419
@Tbootpoo said in #390:
Look, lady, censorship is never appropriate, and neither is your talk of tongue biting and "our" toxicity. This is a chess website for christ sakes, if you're going to speak to me like this at least do it through DMs...
#420
I find it fascinating how this thread turned into a debate about whether misogyny is relevant for topic X or Y and whether car accidents are more relevant for safety in society and the online chess community. :D

If we recall for a second what the original blog post was about

" harassment, bullying, inappropriate, creepy and explicit private messages or similarly unwanted behaviour"

directed towards women by men...

Can we perhaps all agree that misogyny is a factor in that? Or do we need to conduct a study first?
#422
@sgtlaugh said in #411:
> Hello, you again! Can you please mention how car accidents are related to online chess? You can't address or solve every issue there is. What you can do is focus more on specific issues that affect you, are relatable to you, or are important to you. Here, the OP mentions a specific kind of harassment in the online chess world. That's relevant to chess, relevant to Lichess, for the community. Hence it is being discussed in a Lichess blog post.

It was argued on here that sexual harassment is everywhere in chess and that there needs to be a lot more awareness because it's so pervasive. One article cited a chess player stating that she didn't go to one chess game without seeing discrimination happening. It was also argued that the problem of sexual harassment exists in chess due to societal issues outside of chess.

Then there was this comment (post #359 on page 36):
@QueenRosieMary said in #359:
> 5 people in a couple of months for personal harassment, bullying, explicit dms, stalking etc. I have in this time also reported countless others for"routine" chess-related ToS violations like suspected engine use, verbal abuse or public shaming in the chat etc, I'm not counting these in this total.

In this post it sounds as if there were five instances of harassment based on sex over the course of a few months. This statement contradicted the impression that other posters were giving that it was happening constantly and widespread. In addition it seemed like "countless others" is much bigger than five sexual harassment events. Since there are many other issues in chess such as ToS violations, cheating, verbal abuse, bullying, public shaming, I gave the example about car accident PSA's and showed why PSA's should be based on importance. This is not the first sexual harassment article on here. There are multiple. In comparison to other articles it seems to be of the highest importance. Since it was argued that sexual harassment in chess is only part of a much bigger problem it was related to the general awareness of sexual harassment in public areas and how society puts so much importance on it over other issues which objectively physically hurt more people per year. So I brought up the car accident example highlighting how society puts more importance on sexual harassment awareness than car accidents.

> No one said that. It doesn't have to have the same impact. As long as it does have an impact which cannot be discarded.

You're right that nobody said that but it was implied which I'll cite here (post #397 on page 40):

@borninthesixties said in #397:
> Um, what about mental health? Bullying, harassment, stalking on line can have the same impact as in real life - anonymous or not.
#423
@TurtleMat said in #416:
> Wait, this comes from your own link, are you saying you didn't understand your own sources?
>
> You still haven't shown me a single scientific argument. Your "evidence" is flawed on so many levels. Your "other study" is no more a scientific study than the first one. Plus, even your source, which is most likely biaised towards your view, states that this 1percent is significant. ON THE FIRST PAGE.

Ok great then you should be able to articulate exactly why the evidence is flawed on so many levels. Since there are many flaws it should be easy to articulate it. Give me ONE flaw.

@TurtleMat said in #416:
> And it's still just for the US, so you know, not that representative.

I can find the studies showing the same thing for other countries.

@TurtleMat said in #416:
> Gladly.
> Yes, one of the reasons why the raw and corrected numbers are different is the amount worked. Then again, this is due to patriarchy. Or do you want to disagree that women make most of the care work FOR FREE ? which of course let them with less time and energy to work the extra 5 hours. So, next try, give me ONE factor that adresses both numbers and don't comes from patriarchy.

I don't understand so you need to articulate more than just saying "because it's the patriarchy." How does the patriarchy cause men and women to work different hours?

@TurtleMat said in #416:
> So women are just lying about the whole thing, and that's where sexism comes from?

What are you talking about? Both men and women are saying that there is and isn't a wage gap. It's not just women claiming it.

@TurtleMat said in #416:
> that still just adresses the corrected number and not the raw one. Plus, the difference for equivalent post doesn't have to happen at the same compagny.

I asked for just one company where they have a job posting with different rates for men and women and didn't get an answer. Given how widespread the wage gap is (82 cents for every dollar a man makes) and out of the millions of businesses in the United States it should be an easy endeavor. There's got to be one that has a job posting paying women less.

@TurtleMat said in #416:
> You have trouble with logic. And to not know the facts.
>
> About calling Peterson a mysoginist, that's not an ad hominem attack. That's a fact.

Even if they are a misogynist it doesn't invalidate what they say. So yes it is an ad hominem attack because it's an attempt to discredit someone based on personal attacks. Even if the personal attacks are true it's still ad hominem.