SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The BBC are reporting that troubled community website Reddit has lost another female member of its senior team with the resignation of chief engineer Bethanye Blount, only days after the resignation of Ellen Pao. The BBC report continues:
Ms Blount told website Recode she believed Ms Pao had been put on a "glass cliff" - or set up to fail. Victoria Taylor, who oversaw a popular question-and-answer section of the site, was sacked last month.
"Victoria wasn't on a glass cliff. But it's hard for me to see it any other way than Ellen was," Bethanye Blount said in an interview.
But Ms Blount, a former Facebook employee, added that her own decision to leave Reddit just two months after joining, had not been based on gender issues. And new chief executive, Steve Huffman, said he was "confident" that the site could recruit female executives.
The phrase "glass cliff" is used to describe women placed in leadership roles during times of crisis, when positive change is hard to achieve.
[...]
Despite the ongoing turmoil, Reddit is in good financial shape, according to Mr Huffman, also one of its co-founders.
"Reddit has a lot of cash," he said, in an Ask Me Anything session on the site.. "Monetisation isn't a short-term concern of ours."
The site currently attracts 164 million monthly users.
Original Submission
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:11PM
Are you absolutely sure you didn't invoke one of them fallacies yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:56PM
If you think your opponent in a debate is being fallicious, its your responsibility to point out the fallacy in use and why its an example of that fallacy. The first step in any debate is making sure your opponent's argument is sound, because there's no point in arguing against an invalid argument, because its already invalid, invalidating it a second time won't make it more invalid, and if your opponent is unable to present a valid argument and continues pushing sophistry, thats a clue that they're delusional (willfully or not doesn't matter) and you should stop wasting your breath, because you can't debate rationally against a position that wasn't reached rationally.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:08PM
if your opponent is unable to present a valid argument and continues pushing sophistry, thats a clue that they're delusional
Or it's a clue that you just can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, such that you can diagnose any disagreement as a mental disorder.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:44PM
Or it's a clue that you just can't stand anyone disagreeing with you, such that you can diagnose any disagreement as a mental disorder.
Now that is just crazy, and paranoid to boot. We should invoke the principle of charity before we launch into our own persecution complexes. The principle of charity is to assume your opponent is making sense, until they manifestly prove otherwise. That means that if your opponent in an argument appears to be insane, you should at first blame yourself for thinking so, and not understanding what their point is. And so, you should ask them to clarify their position for you. The question is, how many times should you do this? If the best they can come up with is "you just don't understand because you don't like my position", we have a problem. They may actually be crazy. But in any case, they are not being charitable, and are not seeking to forward our open and honest discussion of issues.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:01PM
Hear, hear.
I try to operate under a similar rule, "Assume that each individual thinks that they're doing the right thing." Some politicians make it damn hard to do, though.
.
(Cf. Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. I'm not sure whether that was directed at me or the parent, but I'll admit I fall into the GIFT trap all too often.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:26PM
Not the same AC but I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question.
The comment invokes a double dichtomy, it implies that if you are not with the left-wing progressives you are a right-wing conservative nutjob. This is obviously bs "us versus them" crap that the great enemy conservatives have been invoking since the dawn of time (6000 years ago!).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @07:54AM
Wow. You are seriously deep in the aspie-land. Come off that logical bondage and embrace the universe with motives different from your tetris-world. Before you come yelling ad hominem, note that this is not an argument but a suggestion.
Anyway, for the sake of entertainment, I'll present equally broken statements in different context. Had I had time I would have given them in the original post.
"If you are not with us you are with hitler" (these are not the only options)
"I see racism in your behaviour and ideological racism is pseudoscience, therefore you believe in pseudoscience" (one meaning of a word cannot be inferred from the other)
"Oh you misspelled x, therefore your argument is invalid" (the actual argument is not its literal presentation)
Finally a furher offtopic note: Usenet made me realize that superficial by-the-book understanding of argumentation fallacies is sometimes worse than not knowing them at all. In the latter case you might still be able to use your brain and reason why they are broken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @11:28AM
Finally a furher offtopic note: Usenet made me realize that superficial by-the-book understanding of argumentation fallacies is sometimes worse than not knowing them at all.
A superficial by-the-book understanding? Fine. But what comments here, specifically, are you referring to?