sdml

>> the mere presence of diversity policies, diversity training, and diversity awards cause white people to be less likely to believe racial discrimination exists and cause men to be less likely to believe gender

This isn't really what the studies demonstrate.

It's unclear in the first study whether participants were male only, so I assume it was mixed gender:

>> Participants in one study read a New York Times article published as a class action lawsuit for gender discrimination against pharmaceutical giant Novartis went to trial [...] Those that read the sentence about theWorking Mother accolade were less likely to believe that the female employees had a valid case against Novartis, even though the rest of the article remained the same.

In the second study, only white people are tested and there's no analysis of other groups:

>> In one version, white people read either a diversity statement, or a mission statement, for a fictional company [...] Participants who had read the diversity statement were less likely to believe that discrimination had occurred and rated the Black employee more negatively

These both present evidence that people have biases. There's no evidence to suggest that white people or men are more likely to be affected by these biases than other groups. This is not to say that tech doesn't have a diversity problem or that biases aren't real, but I don't think any groups are magically immune to bias.

> I presume you mean heteronormative

Heteronormative refers to the assumption that being heterosexual is the normal or preferred sexual orientation. Since no one has brought up the topic of sexual orientation, you're probably trying to use the word cisnormative here.

Edit: Added a new line for better readability

> a yes vote on 66 overrides a yes vote on 62

That's not entirely true. In the event that both propositions pass, whichever proposition received more yes votes will supersede the other https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_66,_Death_Pen...

I wouldn't say "other than Haily". Even with that character in mind, I don't consider the show to be sexist. My point is that having a flawed female character doesn't imply that the show will be perceived as "attacking women" as tzs seems to be suggesting.

Do you have any evidence for this or is it pure speculation? One counter-example I can think of is Modern Family, which was a less smart, rebellious child who is female -- the Haley character -- and has not to my knowledge received any criticism for "attacking women".

How critically are you judging the facial attractiveness and "social impairement" of male developers?

This is a completely useless comment, and exactly the sexist kind of attitude that drives women out of tech.

It depends on whether you consider intensity or duration to determine how "easy" a workout is. Sure, 2.5 hours is a lot of time to invest, but walking at 2.5 MpH hardly seems strenuous enough to qualify as exercise.

A 160 pound person could burn 500 calories in ~40 minutes jogging at a 10 minute per mile pace, and could easily offset a Big Mac in a single day's exercise (not saying that the person should use this to justify eating a Big Mac).

"a dip in global carbon dioxide levels caused by the abandonment of native farms across the Americas following the deaths of millions of indigenous people in the aftermath of European colonisation."

Wouldn't this suggest that the advent of native farming had previously caused a rise in global carbon dioxide levels, and consequently that the human epoch began much earlier?

What strikes me as the most interesting here is how a good number of the posters demonize women and imply that they are disproportionately responsible for the spread of VD