‘Male’ and ‘female’ plugs and connectors – gendered language

[dcrookston]

You used the base term "accuse" first.  You seem to be taking exception with yourself, you can keep that private. Maybe you don't know what those terms mean either?

More straw manning and false equivocation.

Pro-tip, don't take words out of context, make some pedantic claim, generate a straw man to back up your claim, make a false equivocation and stand their snuggly and say you're correcting someone.

If you don't understand the context of the topic being discussed and only have such petty things to say, don't be surprised when you get corrected. Take your content and consider how you might have spent that time and effort actually having an intelligent discussion about the topic at hand.

Very well.  I accept that you have no arguments to support your position, and that you concede.  Let's move on.

[Cyclotron]

You used the base term "accuse" first.  You seem to be taking exception with yourself, you can keep that private. Maybe you don't know what those terms mean either?

More straw manning and false equivocation.

Pro-tip, don't take words out of context, make some pedantic claim, generate a straw man to back up your claim, make a false equivocation and stand their snuggly and say you're correcting someone.

If you don't understand the context of the topic being discussed and only have such petty things to say, don't be surprised when you get corrected. Take your content and consider how you might have spent that time and effort actually having an intelligent discussion about the topic at hand.

Very well.  I accept that you have no arguments to support your position, and that you concede.  Let's move on.

  
You took 

The US Law forbids all discrimination in all cases

out of context, hell even out of the very sentence it was in.
You described something completely unrelated as to why that few words are wrong.

So, show me the legal cases that refute my claim. Shouldn't be hard all you have to do is find one that supersedes the most recent SCOTUS rulings except that's not possible is it?

To add more nonsense you demand that I defend my position. You never made a proper counter argument or supported your claim. I have nothing to defend.

 You should stop digging. You were corrected so accept it and move on.   

[Zero999]

I not a lawyer but I believe part of the way the anti-discrimination laws in the US and UK are written and implemented. Lawyers have managed to successfully argue that any policies which negatively affect minorities are a form of indirect discrimination i.e. making applicants take tests tests which a racial minority is less likely to pass, even if conducted in a colourblind manner are racist and should not be allowed..

Affirmative action in practice was found to violate anti-discrimination law and hence why it was struck down in the US.

It took a long time for that to happen.

On the other hand redlining was banned under civil rights law. The argument stating it was racist because it did disproportionally affected black people won out, even though it also affected many poor white people.

[negativ3]

One observation with the metric of time built in is that DEI policies are promoted most vigorously by those least affected by them.
The ones most affected have the least say and are accused of the epithet of the day.

A recent example is some towns in UK are now flipping political alignment due to the imminent arrival of asylum seekers on their doorsteps, whereas they have been happily voting for it as hotels and cities are filled up "not in their area". Odd eh.

Proposers of social engineering should be frontline adopters.
Voters for it should be frontline adopters.
Profiteers of all such actions should be published and transparent.

See how long such programs last.

[Cyclotron]

I not a lawyer but I believe part of the way the anti-discrimination laws in the US and UK are written and implemented. Lawyers have managed to successfully argue that any policies which negatively affect minorities are a form of indirect discrimination i.e. making applicants take tests tests which a racial minority is less likely to pass, even if conducted in a colourblind manner are racist and should not be allowed..

Affirmative action in practice was found to violate anti-discrimination law and hence why it was struck down in the US.

It took a long time for that to happen.

On the other hand redlining was banned under civil rights law. The argument stating it was racist because it did disproportionally affected black people won out, even though it also affected many poor white people.

I'm not sure what your point is.  If you are saying that both things were wrong, racist and harmful, and it took the slow wheels of justice a long time to correct, then I agree.

[paulca]

I not a lawyer but I believe part of the way the anti-discrimination laws in the US and UK are written and implemented. Lawyers have managed to successfully argue that any policies which negatively affect minorities are a form of indirect discrimination i.e. making applicants take tests tests which a racial minority is less likely to pass, even if conducted in a colourblind manner are racist and should not be allowed..

Affirmative action in practice was found to violate anti-discrimination law and hence why it was struck down in the US.

It took a long time for that to happen.

On the other hand redlining was banned under civil rights law. The argument stating it was racist because it did disproportionally affected black people won out, even though it also affected many poor white people.

I'm not sure what your point is.  If you are saying that both things were wrong, racist and harmful, and it took the slow wheels of justice a long time to correct, then I agree.

I think he is suggesting that when there were 100 places, the university might have been affording scholarships and help for poor people to take some of those places.  When AA started those places went straight to black/ethnic applicants.

I would be interested in seeing stats on that first.


When it comes to sustained mass immigration - circa 1% population every year for the past few.
Its a interesting, but controversial framing.  Lets strawman:  "It's not race, nor the color of their skin, but where and how they were raised, their values, choices, ambitions, motivations and morals." etc.  You can say that for a lot of people in the world that has as much choice as the colour of their skin to them.  They did not choose to grow up and learn what we consider a incompatible culture.  So the far left move straight to, "therefore we should embrace them.  All people are good.  They will quickly acclimatise to our ways."

A few "easier to talk about" incidents in the British Isles have caught my attention.  Game (and wild), fish and birds.  In the UK we see most wildlife as "protected".  You basically need land and deeds on animals you bought/bred for livestock to be able to butcher them.  Birds are protected with prison sentences for deliberately harming them.  Pigeons are basically "Commons pets". Dogs are FAMILY!

Recently new comers to the islands have seen the rivers stuffed with fish as "Free food" and begun to ribbon net the whole width of the river and proceed to eat like kings and sell it to the neighbour hood.

Others have been seen picking up pigeons ringing their necks and piling them up beside them in the park.  When ask what the F they thought they were doing, they answered in broken English, "Have to eat!"

The pigeon population of the UK would last about 2 evenings if they were on the menu.  The rivers would be stagnant hell pits with no signs of life in weeks or months.  Memories of the Thames going stagnant and causing massive collera outbreaks etc.

When things like this happen I do not see skin colour.  I see rapid and unplanned societal and environment pressure where multiple cultures collide in bad ways because the "Nice sayers" cannot accept it will end badly.

On the "Human" side of things.  These people are not doing anything wrong.   A man in his natural habitat taking from the land to feed his family, so to speak.  At the base level there is nothing more natural and human to do!  On the other, most of the rivers where there is no protection die out as the human population rises.  Then they starve and get sick and the population falls or the population migrates.... or like the british isles, they society learns to "manage" it's resources.

[tszaboo]

I think he is suggesting that when there were 100 places, the university might have been affording scholarships and help for poor people to take some of those places.  When AA started those places went straight to black/ethnic applicants.

I would be interested in seeing stats on that first.

Which BTW is a good idea. Just base the scholarship on income of parents, and not skin color.
It's really not that difficult to see, how they took good ideas, and completely perverted it to be racist and sexist. When you don't look too deep into it. The entire worldview there is just a bunch of ideas that might sound good surface level.

[Cyclotron]

I think he is suggesting that when there were 100 places, the university might have been affording scholarships and help for poor people to take some of those places.  When AA started those places went straight to black/ethnic applicants.

I would be interested in seeing stats on that first.

Which BTW is a good idea. Just base the scholarship on income of parents, and not skin color.
It's really not that difficult to see, how they took good ideas, and completely perverted it to be racist and sexist. When you don't look too deep into it. The entire worldview there is just a bunch of ideas that might sound good surface level.

Indeed, I think the general population is always good with "a hand up" as long as its done in a fair way.

[Simon]

I had to sort out a connector sourcing issue at work. The part we thought we needed was wrong because the companies part number said socket on it, it was in fact a plug. I'm assuming someone got it wrong because there was a reference to socket pin or maybe just socket intended to describe the pin and because they were no a connector anorak they did not realize what it referred to. That is what happens.

If you don't use male and female it causes confusion, when you try to explain the terminology you end up saying things that could be taken as euphemisms for sexual things, so you are wokely fucked either way.

[TimFox]

I had to sort out a connector sourcing issue at work. The part we thought we needed was wrong because the companies part number said socket on it, it was in fact a plug. I'm assuming someone got it wrong because there was a reference to socket pin or maybe just socket intended to describe the pin and because they were no a connector anorak they did not realize what it referred to. That is what happens.

If you don't use male and female it causes confusion, when you try to explain the terminology you end up saying things that could be taken as euphemisms for sexual things, so you are wokely fucked either way.

The socket/plug confusion may have been caused by naming panel-mount connectors as sockets (just like your wall socket for mains) and cable-mount connectors as plugs (just like the plug at the end of the line cord).

[tom66]

A recent example is some towns in UK are now flipping political alignment due to the imminent arrival of asylum seekers on their doorsteps, whereas they have been happily voting for it as hotels and cities are filled up "not in their area". Odd eh.

The towns that are most objecting to asylum seekers in the UK are more right wing, I would say.  Clacton, for instance, has Nigel Farage as its MP, and there have been protests there over hotels housing asylum seekers.

I suppose the problem is that unless you find ways to stop the boats, either by force (which could involve shooting at the boats), or reducing the pull (which requires eliminating the illegal workforce entirely, something the UK has failed to do for decades so far), then they will keep on coming.  There aren't any 'easy' solutions, so we get the unpleasant ones no one likes.

Proposers of social engineering should be frontline adopters.
Voters for it should be frontline adopters.
Profiteers of all such actions should be published and transparent.

See how long such programs last.

I suspect that you will find the areas that most support these policies tend to be cities where diversity is higher (e.g. London) and people are more supporting of it, but even in these areas it is clear there is a growing backlash.  Regardless of your views, the data shows that asylum seekers commit disproportionately more crimes.  This is a problem.  If someone is invited into the country on compassionate grounds and then they commit a crime, then sympathy declines.  It also appears many lie about their claims; some claiming to be e.g. fleeing Afghanistan later found to visit the country on holiday once granted status. The difficulty is there are likely many legitimate claims among the chancers and liars, but it is too difficult to separate them out reliably. 

One can hold these views whilst still accepting that we should try to treat people with empathy and compassion.

[tom66]

I think he is suggesting that when there were 100 places, the university might have been affording scholarships and help for poor people to take some of those places.  When AA started those places went straight to black/ethnic applicants.

I would be interested in seeing stats on that first.

Which BTW is a good idea. Just base the scholarship on income of parents, and not skin color.
It's really not that difficult to see, how they took good ideas, and completely perverted it to be racist and sexist. When you don't look too deep into it. The entire worldview there is just a bunch of ideas that might sound good surface level.

Income of parents is a tricky one.  Students have claimed to be separated from their parents, or live with just one parent, to get higher grant amounts.  I know several personally who have done this.  They will not get caught because it's essentially impossible to prove a negative, like "I don't get on with my parents any more".  You could look at parental income regardless of claimed status.  But if someone wants to live separately from their rich, abusive parents, should they still not get support?

In that sense it is actually easier to filter on race/ethnicity, because you can just look at someone and judge them to be lying or not. Whether it is ok or not to do is another matter entirely!

[Analog Kid]

Regardless of your views, the data shows that asylum seekers commit disproportionately more crimes.

Is that really true, though?

It's not true here in the U.S., even though the usual bigots claim that all those dark-skinned people pouring over the border are all a bunch of criminals and scumbags. In fact, so far as I know, the rate of crime committed by immigrants overall is just about the same as of the general population.

But just try to convince MAGA supporters of that ... "FAKE NEWS!".

[EEVblog]

The goal of all this renaming stuff isn't to protect anyone or anything, that's just the excuse they use. The real reason is those who champion these changes love the feeling of power it brings them and the virtue they can display. It's always about power and virtue.

[paulca]

Regardless of your views, the data shows that asylum seekers commit disproportionately more crimes.

Is that really true, though?

It's not true here in the U.S., even though the usual bigots claim that all those dark-skinned people pouring over the border are all a bunch of criminals and scumbags. In fact, so far as I know, the rate of crime committed by immigrants overall is just about the same as of the general population.

But just try to convince MAGA supporters of that ... "FAKE NEWS!".

These stats are banded around from one side, then re-interrupted by the other side to debunk.  They are both right and wrong.

The justice department states show "Crime of type by country of origin."  Most of the African nations are at the top.

One side tries to sell it as "All our crimes come from this", the other tries to sell it as "Missunderstood Statistical noise"

On how to solve it.  I found one of them proposals actually not that bad or barbaric, but the left will NEVER accept it.  Like they did not accept moving them via large barge to a British region in Africa.  But... the proposal was to round them up off the beach and put them on an island.  Shelter, Food and water provided.  On site medical staff etc.  NO MONEY!  No house.  No Job.  You stay there until either your stay is extended and you can leave to the mainland UK or you get boated back on request.  Basically a refugee camp.  Any "illegal" immigrant located without "extension of stay" papers, gets lifted and sent to the island.

The issue it's trying to address is that currently there is nearly zero incentive not to come to the UK.  Once here the asylum rights kick in and the governent are legally bound to accept them.  As they are subject of the government at first.  The government is LEGALLY responsible or their healt then well being.  So support, financial aid, doctors appointments dentist appointments etc.  all follow in rapid time.  Things a large portion of the british natives are struggling to meet these days.  Things that a refugee camp would provide on site!

The sad reality is....  I see a train with too much momentum to stop now.  Its going to wreck.  Sadly that will mean violence and an uprising.  I do not support that, but I have seen the signs rising for quite some time and nothing seems to being done to even calm or damp it.  It's going to pop!  Its not going to be pretty.

One thing I find funny, "Why are they all coming over here!?" question.  Its hilarious as if even 1% of Africa or Indian or the middle east arrived in the UK, it will fill every house and field.  Its a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction choosing to make that trip.  Yet that in itself is a good heed of warning and the genuine risk in the situation.  The UK is "tiny".  It cannot and will not sustain mass imigration for long.  These people don't disappear in the wilds and frontiers as there aren't any.  It's housing, industrial or farming.  There is no "free land" anywhere.  The only thing they can do is "displace" existing residents from areas, which is already happening in many newly forming "Cultural Enclaves".

EDIT: Sorry, I noticed myself doing someting bad.  Conflating "Illegal immigration, "boat arrivals" and all the rest" into one.  The UK is exceeding 1 million NET immigration per year and has been for about 5 years.  Thats a >1% population increase per year.  That is not sustainable.  However.  The VAST majority of those are NOT illegal immigrants off boats.  They "economic migrants" and invited under Visa to fill positions in companies claiming a shortage of skills.  The "boat arrivals" are a tiny, tiny fraction of that, totalling I believe to only 150k so far to date.

On the claim that "asylum seekers are vetted before being permitted to free roam".  This is true.  However.  If you read the home office's actual guidance it uses "Depol" and international "Port authority" data for registered crimes.  A lot of these people are coming from lands with no law and order which have been at war for a long long time.  It is EXTREMELY unlikely that their crimes are recorded in formal international databases.

I have questions:
Why is it also "mostly men"?
How do some of them have a travel history through other nations including FLIGHTS!  How exactly does that count as "Fleeing" danger.  People fleeing danger move until its safe and stop.  It seem that the UK has been flagged as "The destination" for some reason.  Also... how do people with no ID/passport or money (supposedly) get flights through Europe?

[Simon]

I had to sort out a connector sourcing issue at work. The part we thought we needed was wrong because the companies part number said socket on it, it was in fact a plug. I'm assuming someone got it wrong because there was a reference to socket pin or maybe just socket intended to describe the pin and because they were no a connector anorak they did not realize what it referred to. That is what happens.

If you don't use male and female it causes confusion, when you try to explain the terminology you end up saying things that could be taken as euphemisms for sexual things, so you are wokely fucked either way.

The socket/plug confusion may have been caused by naming panel-mount connectors as sockets (just like your wall socket for mains) and cable-mount connectors as plugs (just like the plug at the end of the line cord).

Nope, a plug with female terminals had been called a socket. Likely because of the "socket pins" somehow making its way into the shell name.

[tom66]

Regardless of your views, the data shows that asylum seekers commit disproportionately more crimes.

Is that really true, though?

Unfortunately yes, although it depends on which crimes you look at.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45419466

I don't think this has anything to do with ethnicity directly, but rather it is a combination of cultural crash (people come from a society that works differently to western society) and poorer, typically young men that make up the majority of asylum seekers.  And those groups are never good from a crime stats POV.