[dijit]

FWIW, I upvoted your grand-parent comment but downvoted this.

People are trying to have an open discussion here, and I agree that we should keep as open a mind as possible. Part of that precludes the notion of falling back into another ideology, which the parent to this comment is warning about. They are not blaming you of doing it, just warning.

There exists many theories as to why this is happening, we should identify the data we have and determine the most plausible theories based on evidence and research. That's the only rational way forward.

[KirinDave]

I'm confused. Can you identify where I didn't do that in the comment that you decided to disagree-by-downvoting?

I'm quite tired of being warned of drawing conclusions I did not draw, while taking 10-15 karma point penalties. From my perspective, I'm receiving overwhelming feedback that even questioning these programs at the level of efficacy is unwanted and I should be silenced.

I can't really work out how these votes are actually reflective of a disruptive presence in the conversation, unless the idea is to avoid asking that question in any capacity.

> There exists many theories as to why this is happening, we should identify the data we have and determine the most plausible theories based on evidence and research. That's the only rational way forward.

Then I find your response to be disappointing. If the goal is an open debate, shouldn't we actually question these base assertions that underly and inform the statistical machinery of the study?

[dijit]

At first you asserted: that it's possible that these outcomes could have been a byproduct of a failure to remove barriers to men and women going into workforce's which are majority dominated by their opposite sex.

In fact you asserted that point quite strongly, and the reply was to the effect: "It's possible, but lets not just assume, since many people are already doing that"

At which point you double-down on defending your original position with no data, instead pressuring the commenter to provide you evidence.

You are not being downvoted for having an opinion, you are being downvoted for how you go about having your opinion.

[KirinDave]

Well, I don't agree with that at all. I'm surprised by the lack of skepticism towards the policies themselves.

Can you count the number of other people in this entire discussion asking the same question? For awhile, I think I was the only one!

It's quite obvious to me that you and others do not want to even enterain these questions, to the point where you're offended and candidly talking about disagree-by-doenvote for considering a fairly obvious question.

This is a discussion forum. But you're not pointing to a way in which I was hurting the discussion. You're talking about muting my questions using downvotes because you find the idea of considering them as a tough experiment offensive.

[dijit]

I've given you time to cool off, and for the conversation to die down so I can reply candidly.

>Well, I don't agree with that at all.

That's fine, But that's how I saw it and how others probably saw it so I was providing insight. It's my subjective opinion and you don't really get to decide that I was wrong. I would advise choosing your words better if you think you were misunderstood.

>I'm surprised by the lack of skepticism towards the policies themselves.

I'm not going to ask for evidence of this because I find it to be condescending. However the reply to your first comment was stating explicitly: "I agree". And, frankly so do I. So that's at least 2 people in this thread alone.

> Can you count the number of other people in this entire discussion asking the same question?

None when you originally posted, again, that you brought up the topic is not a problem. The response was just a warning that there are people who wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater when it comes to this.

The response should be not: "I seriously question the validity of all metrics." it should be "How do we define what metrics work" and "this metric is broken because it doesn't account for <x>". Unless you disagree, in which case I'm curious to know why.

>It's quite obvious to me that you and others do not want to even enterain[sic] these questions

Very happy to entertain these questions, but they're not presented that way in your reply. Somehow it seems you got offended of being branded something you weren't (which, I too get frustrated with) and replied in a tone which was not entertaining the question, merely deriding those who would not tell you exactly what you wanted to hear.

>to the point where you're offended and candidly talking about disagree-by-doenvote for considering a fairly obvious question.

I commented explaining _exactly_ why I downvoted you. I didn't disagree. Your tone was not conducive to a discussion, merely sowing derision on those who would not tell you that all metrics are bad. This is not how you discuss. How you discuss is by saying "These specific metrics are bad due to <x>." or "What are the metrics by which we measure?" NOT "Well, if it's the case that the more 'equal' we are the more unequal we become is; then all the metrics are bad" because the latter reeks of ignorance and while that's fine as an opening question it does not hold up if that's all your follow up comments are concerning.

I can't tell you how _not_ offended I am. Just take my word for the fact that I couldn't really give a shit, I'm here to have my world view opened up not force my opinions down anyones throats.. unless it comes to systemd. I get offended by systemd.

>This is a discussion forum

Exactly, so let's have a discussion and not beat each other over the head with accusations and a lack of research. This goes for all of us and it includes you.

[KirinDave]

> I can't tell you how _not_ offended I am. Just take my word for the fact that I couldn't really give a shit, I'm here to have my world view opened up not force my opinions down anyones throats.. unless it comes to systemd. I get offended by systemd.

This is an extremely normal thing for a person who is not mad and not offended to write. Your self-imposed nihilistic stoicism is cracking.

You're mad because you don't find my tone sufficiently deferential. I don't mind.

I my estimation, my mistake was engaging you further at all. You basically admitted to rules violation for downvotes and then defended it as saying, "You were not sufficiently receptive to my backhanded agreement."

But that's an unreasonable expectation. I don't expect you to understand why that is. Just like I don't expect you to understand what usecases systemd is actually dramatically superior for.

In the interests of the integrity of this forum and in not wasting our time further, I'm going to use a user script I have to block further posts by you for 3 months. Perhaps next time we engage each other it'll be over less of a life-or-death issue, and I can approach it with an attitude you find less frustrating. Thank you for your time, all the same.

[dijit]

Wow, I've responded cogently, earnestly and in good faith to everything you've posted.

This behaviour is pathetic. Please do not treat people like this in real life.