Serious PC thread

[Federberg]

I did mention that right at the start

 

[Moxie]

I did mention that right at the start

No, you said "discuss..." And then you glancingly said that what disturbed you most was the disruption of a lecture at the end. You intended for us to listen to the diatribe that is the framework of that video, and a lot of it is vile, and you've disavowed it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were being lazy. Am I correct in assuming that this is what you actually want to discuss?

 

[Federberg]

That’s exactly what I wanted to discuss. Please don’t presume about my intentions. If you’re unclear about what they are just ask. Couldn’t give a flying whoop what that guy thinks about tennis. He clearly has an agenda. It’s highly irritating that these people frame it as a liberal vs conservative issue. To me it’s just common sense business. I don’t agree with it, but calling it “vile” seems a bit hysterical to me. His views are stupid and ignorant but until we stop assigning extreme labels to these things the polarisation will continue. Anyway, it’s way past my bedtime. I’ll respond in the morning if required

 

[Moxie]

That’s exactly what I wanted to discuss. Please don’t presume about my intentions. If you’re unclear about what they are just ask. Couldn’t give a flying whoop what that guy thinks about tennis. He clearly has an agenda. It’s highly irritating that these people frame it as a liberal vs conservative issue. To me it’s just common sense business. I don’t agree with it, but calling it “vile” seems a bit hysterical to me. His views are stupid and ignorant but until we stop assigning extreme labels to these things the polarisation will continue. Anyway, it’s way past my bedtime. I’ll respond in the morning if required

That's why I did ask. Frankly, the one that clarified it was me. The one that put up some weird alt-right diatribe about tired old arguments re: tennis and equal pay was you. You're willing to call the opinions expressed therein as "stupid" and "ignorant", but blanche at "vile." OK. It's getting past my bedtime, too. I'll put the gloves back on tomorrow and revisit.

 

[Horsa]

I've got a few things to say about what I disagree with here but as the sound on my computer stopped working I've had to watch with subtitles & when they brought attention to websites that took my attention away from the subtitles so I'll have to watch again with subtitles focusing only on the subtitles. What I want to know is the source of the information, is it reliable?, is it authoritative?, etc.

 

[Federberg]

That's why I did ask. Frankly, the one that clarified it was me. The one that put up some weird alt-right diatribe about tired old arguments re: tennis and equal pay was you. You're willing to call the opinions expressed therein as "stupid" and "ignorant", but blanche at "vile." OK. It's getting past my bedtime, too. I'll put the gloves back on tomorrow and revisit.

Sigh... this is silly. Let's stipulate that I wasn't clear about the part of the video I was focussed on (several large glasses of Sancerre and a long day will do that sometimes!). Although even in my first unclear post it was obvious where my focus was. It's interesting to me that all you want to focus on is the provenance of the video instead of the portion I was interested in. As for whether it's attribution is alt-right, does that invalidate the specific lecture that I was looking at? Correct me if I'm wrong the whole point of this thread is the discussion of PC issues gone mad. If you don't want to discuss it that's fine. Trying to throw names or imply sympathies in my direction is a little weak don't you think? I'm surprised to see that from you Moxie, particularly as I think you know very well what my views are. So why the diversion? It seems unnecessarily defensive on your part.

Back to the substantive part that I was bringing to peoples attention, which by the way you then added credibility to by posting an alternative link. Anyone have any thoughts about that?

PS, you can keep trying to lambast me for posting the video Really doesn't bother me. In a way I thank you, because you're helping me directly experience what a lot of these conservative guys complain about - the fact that even if they have a legitimate policy gripe they're labelled an -ism and their substantive point is not confronted. Interestingly it's exactly the same tactic used by the protesters in the video. One going as far as to say that the women who stayed in the lecture hall to listen were brain-washed and another claiming that the ex-google guy is a Neo-nazi. Again a hysterical label, when it appears that his original email was mis-represented. This is my key point. I'm really surprised to learn only now that he was actually making a case for looking at different ways more women could be encouraged into Silicon Valley. Quite clearly fake news is a viable weapon on both extremes

 

[mrzz]

and another claiming that the ex-google guy is a Neo-nazi

A few weeks ago I stopped to read what that guy actually said and wrote. His memo is out there online. The guy is extremely reasonable. Maybe I would not agree with him 100% (but I would agree with a lot of things), but the guy is as far as possible from a Neo-Nazi or any other radical thing to be honest. I was shocked (and I hardly am) to see how widespread was this notion that the guy was some radical, and/or a bigot, and/or an stupid asshole. This view came basically from all across the media with a very few exceptions. Of course some right wing media spared the guy -- not because they are angels but because by chance some of his views would match their agenda.

I honestly lost all patience with people shouting slogans with their brains completely turned off. I used to always factor in that "they have their hearts at the right place" but now I am reconsidering that.

Could not check out the content of the video above. Little time, bad mood. Just wanted to rant and complain.

 

[Moxie]

It's not unusual to ask for a provenance...we do that all the time here. And I purposely added the link by way of being helpful and giving a little more context to the disruption. I've didn't "lambast" you for posting that video. I don't really care, though, listening to the opening anonymous VO that not only goes over really old ground about pay equality in tennis, it adds some pretty outrageous stuff that might even make Ricardo demure. (On the subject of women going to best 3 of 5: "It's highly doubtful that women would be able to perform for this length of time.") That's when I stopped and asked you where we were going with it. I just preferred not to waste my own time without a little more direction. Which you provided.

As to the question of students objecting to speakers on campus and universities inviting various types of speakers, we've done that here, a bit. It's not really something that bothers me much. And this particular example is far from the most outrageous.

 

[mrzz]

OK I watched the video, and some more by the same author. Yes, he is a retard. But this "equal pay" stupidity is so, well, stupid, that even a retard can make a compelling case against it.

 

[Federberg]

As a concept, I'm not really comfortable with equal pay. I definitely support the idea of entertainers being paid fairly for the value of their work. Therefore if at some point in the future, as we've had in the past, where the audience prefers that the WTA players get rewarded more highly than the ATP I'm all for it. It's all about bums on seats for me. At the moment, it's quite clear that the coin is on the other side and punters would rather watch the ATP. So frankly, in my view, they should get paid more. Equal pay regardless of what the market says is just commie nonsense to me, but that's just the way I feel.

But as to the relevant part of the video as @mrzz has pointed out, it's pretty outrageous that the guys statement was so badly misrepresented by the media and the cowardice of Google in sacking him. I guess the effort to put out the true facts wasn't worth the bad publicity they would have to weather. It's probably an acknowledgement of the world we live in right now, it's darn hard to fight against fake news. It's just so depressing how radicalised students have become. I confess my first thought when I saw the guy protester called him a Neo-nazi was that he was angling to get in good with the female protesters. He'll look at his actions in a few decades and smile and say.. "the things a young guy does to get laid!"

 

[Moxie]

OK I watched the video, and some more by the same author. Yes, he is a retard. But this "equal pay" stupidity is so, well, stupid, that even a retard can make a compelling case against it.

Are you against equal pay in all circumstances, or just in tennis?

 

[mrzz]

Are you against equal pay in all circumstances, or just in tennis?

First let's be clear about what we are discussing: I am sure we (and I mean the posters debating this issue) do not care much about how much the top tennis players make. They have enough money, and even if they end up a million dollars short or up from what they "deserve", well, it is not exactly a tragedy. I am sure you agree with that.

And I am also sure that you agree that this is all about the message. If the message is: "women should not be treated differently/unfairly, should not receive less because they are women", then we obviously agree. I know you know that already, but just to make sure no one out there misunderstands me.

The only justification I see for equal pay in tennis (given all the good arguments against it, some of them the video echoed) is something like "the ends justify the means". You get a little bit of injustice for a small, privileged group -- the top tennis players -- but as a result you spread the right message. Problem is that it is so easy to demonstrate the flaw, or the injustice, within this small group, that in the end you send exactly the opposite message. You make it simply too easy for a guy like the one in the video to come and point out the inconsistencies. You work against your own objective -- which (I guess) is fair play and no gender prejudice.

If one thing that I found on the video is accurate, that BJK actually supports reducing the men's matches for three sets, well, that's way over the line. I react to that not only as tennis afficionado, but as someone with a little bit of common sense (I confess, today way less than average).

Even if I stop way short of buying the conspiracy theory approach of the guy in the video, that blames "the leftists, the feminists, the blablablaists for everything (even if every idea can and are used with bad political intentions, this is a whole other discussion), it is impossible not to realize the how crazy the whole thing can get, and that's why we have the PC bullshit thread.

So, to answer your question: I am against equal pay in tennis, for the reasons above. In general situations, I am against anyone who pays less for a woman solely because she is a woman. How you prevent that is the big problem for which I haven't seen a good solution yet.

 

[Horsa]

1stly I would say I disagree with a couple of the points made.They'd probably think the only way to make women's tennis more entertaining would be to get them to play in bikinis. When it's said that people would prefer to watch men's sport to women's this is not always the case. I know 1st-hand from being in a pub where men were watching football. I heard comments that they preferred the women's football to men's & I was sober as I'd just got in & hadn't had a drink yet & you can't get a more manly environment than a pub. 2ndly, I disagree with the opinion that men work harder than women. I've worked in many places where men have also worked & while some men worked very hard, others relaxed & skived off while women were running around like headless chickens getting everything done & some women were a lot faster than some of the men. In fact some men were very slow & not perfectionists either. I think there's a way out of the make women do 5 sets or men do 3 argument so women get equal pay for equal work as they do the same amount argument & that is to split the difference & make it 4 for each. It might reduce male tennis players injuries. Then again would it increase viewing figures for women's tennis matches? I agree with the fact that generally speaking men are stronger & faster than women because the male hormone testosterone normally makes men stronger than women by the way they tone up. Progesterone & oestrogen (please excuse me if I've spelt oestrogen wrong. It's a hard word to spell.) make women tone up differently to men so it's harder for women to build muscle. I also agree with the fact that we should get paid for either the amount of work we do (more work, more money, less work, less money) or in entertainment who generates more viewers. I agree with the fact P.C. is O.T.T. in the world today. I also thought the protest at the end & calling the speakers fascist was disgusting & O.T.T. I always got taught to look at all sides of the story. How can we do that if some people are allowed to speak while others are silenced.

 

[Moxie]

The only justification I see for equal pay in tennis (given all the good arguments against it, some of them the video echoed) is something like "the ends justify the means". You get a little bit of injustice for a small, privileged group -- the top tennis players -- but as a result you spread the right message. Problem is that it is so easy to demonstrate the flaw, or the injustice, within this small group, that in the end you send exactly the opposite message. You make it simply too easy for a guy like the one in the video to come and point out the inconsistencies. You work against your own objective -- which (I guess) is fair play and no gender prejudice.

If one thing that I found on the video is accurate, that BJK actually supports reducing the men's matches for three sets, well, that's way over the line. I react to that not only as tennis afficionado, but as someone with a little bit of common sense (I confess, today way less than average).

So, to answer your question: I am against equal pay in tennis, for the reasons above. In general situations, I am against anyone who pays less for a woman solely because she is a woman. How you prevent that is the big problem for which I haven't seen a good solution yet.

I agree that we have the same basic notion of equal pay in life. And also that top tennis players make so much money that it doesn't matter. I do have some basic objections to some of your other points, however. (Surprise!) Equal pay in the tournaments where men and women play together (which is not even true in all of them,) is not just sending the "right" message, it offers equal opportunity to lower ranked players. That's more to the point. Where men and women play in the same tournament, it's pretty hard to quantify who is drawing the crowds. And pretty hard to justify a different pay-scale. Is that difficult for us to agree on?

The 3-5/2-3 in sets inequity has been debated here. Frankly, I'm for either men and women both playing best of 5 at Majors, or that we go to best of 3 for all up until quarters, then best of 5 for all, SFs going forward. Many (men) here have said that they don't want to watch of 3/5 set matches by women in early rounds. By the same token, most of us aren't interested in the 3/5 matches by journeymen early on, either. However, there is nothing to compare a great 5 set match for drama, and the women shouldn't be excluded from that.

Frankly, as to how tennis's approach to equal pay plays into the argument of the likes of the guy in that video: I don't give a shit. He's already committed to his opinion. That it makes the likes of you and Federberg get scratchy, frankly, surprises me. Why do you care how tennis spends its money?

Just one note of caution on your English as above in bold: paying "for" a woman and "to" a woman are drastically different things. The articles in all languages are so complicated.

 

[Federberg]

I agree that we have the same basic notion of equal pay in life. And also that top tennis players make so much money that it doesn't matter. I do have some basic objections to some of your other points, however. (Surprise!) Equal pay in the tournaments where men and women play together (which is not even true in all of them,) is not just sending the "right" message, it offers equal opportunity to lower ranked players. That's more to the point. Where men and women play in the same tournament, it's pretty hard to quantify who is drawing the crowds. And pretty hard to justify a different pay-scale. Is that difficult for us to agree on?

The 3-5/2-3 in sets inequity has been debated here. Frankly, I'm for either men and women both playing best of 5 at Majors, or that we go to best of 3 for all up until quarters, then best of 5 for all, SFs going forward. Many (men) here have said that they don't want to watch of 3/5 set matches by women in early rounds. By the same token, most of us aren't interested in the 3/5 matches by journeymen early on, either. However, there is nothing to compare a great 5 set match for drama, and the women shouldn't be excluded from that.

Frankly, as to how tennis's approach to equal pay plays into the argument of the likes of the guy in that video: I don't give a shit. He's already committed to his opinion. That it makes the likes of you and Federberg get scratchy, frankly, surprises me. Why do you care how tennis spends its money?

Just one note of caution on your English as above in bold: paying "for" a woman and "to" a woman are drastically different things. The articles in all languages are so complicated.

Scratchy? What are you going on about now? My views have nothing to do with the nonsense on that video. I’ve stated them often enough. I don’t feel the need to repeat them again. As I stated my interest in the video was the protest at the lecture and the media misrepresentation of the ex google guy. I could excuse your misunderstanding before, but try to be accurate

 

[Moxie]

Scratchy? What are you going on about now? My views have nothing to do with the nonsense on that video. I’ve stated them often enough. I don’t feel the need to repeat them again. As I stated my interest in the video was the protest at the lecture and the media misrepresentation of the ex google guy. I could excuse your misunderstanding before, but try to be accurate

Now I think you're being thin-skinned. I was debating the equal pay thing. As were you. I'm not talking about the google fella. Only mrzz brought him in. If he was your point you could have made that clearer. I did ask you to clarify your point about posting that video. Don't get indignant just because you haven't.

 

[mrzz]

Just one note of caution on your English as above in bold: paying "for" a woman and "to" a woman are drastically different things. The articles in all languages are so complicated.

Thanks for noticing and for not calling it a Freudian slip!

 

[Moxie]

Thanks for noticing and for not calling it a Freudian slip!

 

[Federberg]

Now I think you're being thin-skinned. I was debating the equal pay thing. As were you. I'm not talking about the google fella. Only mrzz brought him in. If he was your point you could have made that clearer. I did ask you to clarify your point about posting that video. Don't get indignant just because you haven't.

I did precisely that. Either you didn’t read my response or you’re being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Moxie]

I did precisely that. Either you didn’t read my response or you’re being deliberately obtuse.

Yes, you clarified, on the campus disruptions and equal pay. When did you bring in the google guy? Don't accuse me of being obtuse. You've slipped this one in without context. The argument is a bit all over the place, and feet to the fire, you never really stated a strong POV. We got 2 arguments in before you said it was about the Google guy.