🔥 Popular | Latest

sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct. Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument. Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI Director One Day Before Vince Foster Died? Rating Mixture About this rating What's True President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What's False There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide) sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct. Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument. Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.

sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was...

Save
sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct.: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI Director One Day Before Vince Foster Died? Rating Mixture About this rating What's True President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What's False There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide) sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct.

sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comed...

Save
theangrymunchkin: musicalluna: cumaeansibyl: all-things-olicity: forloveofreason: shananaomi: jaybushman: spytap: ralfmaximus: faisdm: the-most-calamitous: jibini: top-lotad-breeder: chocogoat: what. why? someone pls explain to me pls i wasnt born yet in 1999 why turn computer off before midnight? what happen if u dont? y2k lol everyone was like “the supervirus is gonna take over the world and ruin everything and end the world!!!” This is the oldest I’ve ever felt. Right now. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU WEREN’T BORN YET IN 1999. Ahh the Millenium bug. It wasn’t a virus, it was an issue with how some old computers at the time were programmed to deal with dates. Basically some computers with older operating systems didn’t have anything in place to deal with the year reaching 99 and looping around to 00. It was believed that this inability to sync with the correct date would cause issues, and even crash entire systems the moment the date changed. People flipped out about it, convinced that the date discrepancy between netwoked systems would bring down computers everywhere and shut down the internet and so all systems relying on computers, including plane navigation etc. would go down causing worldwide chaos. It was genuinely believed that people should all switch off computers to avoid this. One or two smart people spoke up and said “um hey, this actually will only effect a few very outdated computers and they’ll just display the wrong date, so it probably won’t be harmful” but were largely ignored because people selling books about the end of the world were talking louder. In the end, absolutely nothing happened. Oh gosh. I’ve been a programmer working for various government agencies since the early 1990s and I can say with some confidence: NOTHING HAPPENED BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY HARD FIXING SHIT THAT MOST DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BROKEN ON 1-JAN-2000. One example I personally worked on: vaccination databases. My contract was with the CDC to coordinate immunization registries — you know, kids’ vaccine histories. What they got, when they got it, and (most importantly) which vaccines they were due to get next and when. These were state-wide registries, containing millions of records each. Most of these systems were designed in the 1970s and 1980s, and stored the child’s DOB year as only two digits. This means that — had we not fixed it — just about every child in all the databases I worked on would have SUDDENLY AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM 1-JAN-2000. In other words: these kids would suddenly be “too old” to receive critical vaccines. Okay, so that’s not a nuke plant exploding or airplanes dropping from the sky. In fact, nothing obvious would have occurred come Jan 1st. BUT Without the software advising doctors when to give vaccinations, an entire generation’s immunity to things like measles, mumps, smallpox (etc) would have been compromised. And nobody would even know there was a problem for months — possibly years — after. You think the fun games caused by a few anti-vaxers is bad? Imagine whole populations going unvaccinated by accident… one case of measles and the death toll might be measured in millions. This is one example I KNOW to be true, because I was there. I also know that in the years leading up to 2000 there were ad-hoc discussion groups (particularly alt.risk) of amazed programmers and project managers that uncovered year-2000 traps… and fixed them. Quietly, without fanfare.  In many cases because admitting there was a problem would have resulted in a lawsuit by angry customers. But mostly because it was our job to fix those design flaws before anyone was inconvenienced or hurt. So, yeah… all that Y2K hysteria was for nothing, because programmers worked their asses off to make sure it was for nothing. Bolding mine. Absolutely true.  My Mom worked like crazy all throughout 1998 and 1999 on dozens of systems to avoid Y2K crashes. Nothing major happened because people worked to made sure it didn’t. Now if we could just harness that concept for some of the other major issues facing us today.   this meme came so far since i saw it this morning. god i love tumblr teaching tumblr about history. As a young Sys Admin during Y2K, I can confirm that it was SRS BZNS.  I worked for a major pharmaceutical company at the time.  They spent millions of dollars on consultant and programmer hours, not to mention their own employees’ time, to fix all their in-house software as well as replace it with new systems.  Sys Admins like myself were continually deploying patches, updating firmware, and deploying new systems in the months leading up to Y2K.  Once that was done, though, the programmers went home and cashed their checks. When the FATEFUL HOUR came along, it wasn’t just one hour.  For a global company with offices in dozens of countries, it was 24 hours of being alert and on-call.  I imagine that other large organizations had similar setups with entire IT departments working in shifts to monitor everything.  Everyone was on a hair trigger, too, so the slightest problem caused ALL HANDS ON DECK pages to go out. Yes, we had pagers. For hard numbers IDC’s 2006 calculation put the total US cost of remediation, before and after, at $147 billion - that’s in 1999 dollars.  That paid for an army of programmers, including calling up retired grandparents from the senior center because COBOL and FORTRAN apps from the ‘60s needed fixing. Also note that there were some problems, including $13 billion in remediation included in the figure above.  Some of these involved nuclear power plants, medical equipment, and “a customer at a New York State video rental store had a bill for $91,250, the cost of renting the movie ‘The General’s Daughter’ for 100 years.” Y2K was anything but nothing. @figure-forever tfw you do your job so fucking well that everyone thinks you weren’t necessary in the first place :( salute our COBOL cowpokes and other Y2K wranglers, they saved all our asses another important lesson we learned: a shitload of stuff in the ‘90s was still running programs from the ‘60s and ‘70s. it’s hard to justify the expense and trouble of a massive upgrade when things are working “fine” – easier to say “well, I suppose we’ll need to change at some point, but not now” and if things really are working “fine” you can let them go on for a while but every so often you run into something like Y2K where the software simply wasn’t designed to handle certain eventualities. can’t really blame the programmers, either. if you were writing shit in the ‘60s, would you expect people to still be using it in the science-fiction year of 2000? that’s not a real year! you might be dead by then! so, y’know, you don’t always need the latest and greatest for everything you’re doing – how much power do you really need for an inventory system? – but regular upgrades are a Good Idea nerds quietly saving the world. this is superhero nonsense i love it Y2K is a large reason behind the tech boom of the 2000’s. Think about it, tons of programmers and such suddenly in demand? That “oh it’s ok for now, we don’t need to update” attitude thrown out the window? You get a turn from the let’s keep updating what we have to let’s get something new we have to update less, except that doesn’t stop with a single new thing. It becomes a trend, oh you’re having that issue well buy this new one it will never have that issue, oh you’re having issue x buy this new version we fixed issue x as well as that issue, and so on. Not saying it’s a bad thing at all, just saying it really kick-started the hastened technological path we’re on now.: REMEMBER Turn your computer off before midnight orn 12/31/99. BUY theangrymunchkin: musicalluna: cumaeansibyl: all-things-olicity: forloveofreason: shananaomi: jaybushman: spytap: ralfmaximus: faisdm: the-most-calamitous: jibini: top-lotad-breeder: chocogoat: what. why? someone pls explain to me pls i wasnt born yet in 1999 why turn computer off before midnight? what happen if u dont? y2k lol everyone was like “the supervirus is gonna take over the world and ruin everything and end the world!!!” This is the oldest I’ve ever felt. Right now. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU WEREN’T BORN YET IN 1999. Ahh the Millenium bug. It wasn’t a virus, it was an issue with how some old computers at the time were programmed to deal with dates. Basically some computers with older operating systems didn’t have anything in place to deal with the year reaching 99 and looping around to 00. It was believed that this inability to sync with the correct date would cause issues, and even crash entire systems the moment the date changed. People flipped out about it, convinced that the date discrepancy between netwoked systems would bring down computers everywhere and shut down the internet and so all systems relying on computers, including plane navigation etc. would go down causing worldwide chaos. It was genuinely believed that people should all switch off computers to avoid this. One or two smart people spoke up and said “um hey, this actually will only effect a few very outdated computers and they’ll just display the wrong date, so it probably won’t be harmful” but were largely ignored because people selling books about the end of the world were talking louder. In the end, absolutely nothing happened. Oh gosh. I’ve been a programmer working for various government agencies since the early 1990s and I can say with some confidence: NOTHING HAPPENED BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY HARD FIXING SHIT THAT MOST DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BROKEN ON 1-JAN-2000. One example I personally worked on: vaccination databases. My contract was with the CDC to coordinate immunization registries — you know, kids’ vaccine histories. What they got, when they got it, and (most importantly) which vaccines they were due to get next and when. These were state-wide registries, containing millions of records each. Most of these systems were designed in the 1970s and 1980s, and stored the child’s DOB year as only two digits. This means that — had we not fixed it — just about every child in all the databases I worked on would have SUDDENLY AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM 1-JAN-2000. In other words: these kids would suddenly be “too old” to receive critical vaccines. Okay, so that’s not a nuke plant exploding or airplanes dropping from the sky. In fact, nothing obvious would have occurred come Jan 1st. BUT Without the software advising doctors when to give vaccinations, an entire generation’s immunity to things like measles, mumps, smallpox (etc) would have been compromised. And nobody would even know there was a problem for months — possibly years — after. You think the fun games caused by a few anti-vaxers is bad? Imagine whole populations going unvaccinated by accident… one case of measles and the death toll might be measured in millions. This is one example I KNOW to be true, because I was there. I also know that in the years leading up to 2000 there were ad-hoc discussion groups (particularly alt.risk) of amazed programmers and project managers that uncovered year-2000 traps… and fixed them. Quietly, without fanfare.  In many cases because admitting there was a problem would have resulted in a lawsuit by angry customers. But mostly because it was our job to fix those design flaws before anyone was inconvenienced or hurt. So, yeah… all that Y2K hysteria was for nothing, because programmers worked their asses off to make sure it was for nothing. Bolding mine. Absolutely true.  My Mom worked like crazy all throughout 1998 and 1999 on dozens of systems to avoid Y2K crashes. Nothing major happened because people worked to made sure it didn’t. Now if we could just harness that concept for some of the other major issues facing us today.   this meme came so far since i saw it this morning. god i love tumblr teaching tumblr about history. As a young Sys Admin during Y2K, I can confirm that it was SRS BZNS.  I worked for a major pharmaceutical company at the time.  They spent millions of dollars on consultant and programmer hours, not to mention their own employees’ time, to fix all their in-house software as well as replace it with new systems.  Sys Admins like myself were continually deploying patches, updating firmware, and deploying new systems in the months leading up to Y2K.  Once that was done, though, the programmers went home and cashed their checks. When the FATEFUL HOUR came along, it wasn’t just one hour.  For a global company with offices in dozens of countries, it was 24 hours of being alert and on-call.  I imagine that other large organizations had similar setups with entire IT departments working in shifts to monitor everything.  Everyone was on a hair trigger, too, so the slightest problem caused ALL HANDS ON DECK pages to go out. Yes, we had pagers. For hard numbers IDC’s 2006 calculation put the total US cost of remediation, before and after, at $147 billion - that’s in 1999 dollars.  That paid for an army of programmers, including calling up retired grandparents from the senior center because COBOL and FORTRAN apps from the ‘60s needed fixing. Also note that there were some problems, including $13 billion in remediation included in the figure above.  Some of these involved nuclear power plants, medical equipment, and “a customer at a New York State video rental store had a bill for $91,250, the cost of renting the movie ‘The General’s Daughter’ for 100 years.” Y2K was anything but nothing. @figure-forever tfw you do your job so fucking well that everyone thinks you weren’t necessary in the first place :( salute our COBOL cowpokes and other Y2K wranglers, they saved all our asses another important lesson we learned: a shitload of stuff in the ‘90s was still running programs from the ‘60s and ‘70s. it’s hard to justify the expense and trouble of a massive upgrade when things are working “fine” – easier to say “well, I suppose we’ll need to change at some point, but not now” and if things really are working “fine” you can let them go on for a while but every so often you run into something like Y2K where the software simply wasn’t designed to handle certain eventualities. can’t really blame the programmers, either. if you were writing shit in the ‘60s, would you expect people to still be using it in the science-fiction year of 2000? that’s not a real year! you might be dead by then! so, y’know, you don’t always need the latest and greatest for everything you’re doing – how much power do you really need for an inventory system? – but regular upgrades are a Good Idea nerds quietly saving the world. this is superhero nonsense i love it Y2K is a large reason behind the tech boom of the 2000’s. Think about it, tons of programmers and such suddenly in demand? That “oh it’s ok for now, we don’t need to update” attitude thrown out the window? You get a turn from the let’s keep updating what we have to let’s get something new we have to update less, except that doesn’t stop with a single new thing. It becomes a trend, oh you’re having that issue well buy this new one it will never have that issue, oh you’re having issue x buy this new version we fixed issue x as well as that issue, and so on. Not saying it’s a bad thing at all, just saying it really kick-started the hastened technological path we’re on now.
Save
IL SISTEMA UNIVERISTARIO DANESE OFFRE OPPORTUNITÀ AGLI STUDENTI EUROPEI. Per gli studenti dell'EEA, European Economic Area e della Svizzera, le Università danesi e tutti i livelli di istruzione superiore sono gratuiti. Il sistema danese permette allo studente di mantenersi autonomamente tramite prestiti e borse di studio. Inoltre, è comune che aziende e piccoli esercizi commerciali propongano lavori ad hoc per gli studenti, che il contribuisce all'inserimento dei giovani nel mondo del lavoro. Per conoscere sempre qualcosa di nuovo : 👉🏻www.thedifferentgroup.com 📚 danimarca università scuola divulgazione curiosità different bedifferent: different ATTUALITA In Danimarca per gli studenti dell'EEA e della Svizzera, le Universita sono gratuite. Gli studenti ricevono un prestito mensile che permette loro di essere indipendenti. thedifferentgroup.com Fonte: EFG.eu IL SISTEMA UNIVERISTARIO DANESE OFFRE OPPORTUNITÀ AGLI STUDENTI EUROPEI. Per gli studenti dell'EEA, European Economic Area e della Svizzera, le Università danesi e tutti i livelli di istruzione superiore sono gratuiti. Il sistema danese permette allo studente di mantenersi autonomamente tramite prestiti e borse di studio. Inoltre, è comune che aziende e piccoli esercizi commerciali propongano lavori ad hoc per gli studenti, che il contribuisce all'inserimento dei giovani nel mondo del lavoro. Per conoscere sempre qualcosa di nuovo : 👉🏻www.thedifferentgroup.com 📚 danimarca università scuola divulgazione curiosità different bedifferent

IL SISTEMA UNIVERISTARIO DANESE OFFRE OPPORTUNITÀ AGLI STUDENTI EUROPEI. Per gli studenti dell'EEA, European Economic Area e della Svizze...

Save
Molti di voi saranno scettici, ma prendete un qualsiasi programma di foto ritocco e provate ad estrarre il colore principale delle fragole dalla foto. Vi accorgerete che quel colore è tutt’altro che rosso, bensì un normalissimo grigio. L’illusione è stata creata ad hoc da uno psicologo giapponese. Lo scopo del professore è quello di farci capire quanto sia vero che noi non vediamo solamente con gli occhi ma anche (e soprattutto) con il nostro cervello: se la mente ci dice una cosa, noi crediamo a quello che ci dice la mente che effettua delle “correzioni automatiche” su quello che vediamo, correzioni dettate dall’esperienza: nessuno ha mai visto delle fragole grigie, mentre tutti sanno che sono rosse. E così il cervello ce le mostra, tenendo in considerazione che anche tutto il contorno è dato da colori che non sono reali.: Miti Da Sfatare Queste fragole sonogrigie ma tu le vedirosse Fonte: Focus it Molti di voi saranno scettici, ma prendete un qualsiasi programma di foto ritocco e provate ad estrarre il colore principale delle fragole dalla foto. Vi accorgerete che quel colore è tutt’altro che rosso, bensì un normalissimo grigio. L’illusione è stata creata ad hoc da uno psicologo giapponese. Lo scopo del professore è quello di farci capire quanto sia vero che noi non vediamo solamente con gli occhi ma anche (e soprattutto) con il nostro cervello: se la mente ci dice una cosa, noi crediamo a quello che ci dice la mente che effettua delle “correzioni automatiche” su quello che vediamo, correzioni dettate dall’esperienza: nessuno ha mai visto delle fragole grigie, mentre tutti sanno che sono rosse. E così il cervello ce le mostra, tenendo in considerazione che anche tutto il contorno è dato da colori che non sono reali.

Molti di voi saranno scettici, ma prendete un qualsiasi programma di foto ritocco e provate ad estrarre il colore principale delle fragol...

Save
tamashiihiroka: forloveofreason: shananaomi: jaybushman: spytap: ralfmaximus: faisdm: the-most-calamitous: jibini: top-lotad-breeder: chocogoat: what. why? someone pls explain to me pls i wasnt born yet in 1999 why turn computer off before midnight? what happen if u dont? y2k lol everyone was like “the supervirus is gonna take over the world and ruin everything and end the world!!!” This is the oldest I’ve ever felt. Right now. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU WEREN’T BORN YET IN 1999. Ahh the Millenium bug. It wasn’t a virus, it was an issue with how some old computers at the time were programmed to deal with dates. Basically some computers with older operating systems didn’t have anything in place to deal with the year reaching 99 and looping around to 00. It was believed that this inability to sync with the correct date would cause issues, and even crash entire systems the moment the date changed. People flipped out about it, convinced that the date discrepancy between netwoked systems would bring down computers everywhere and shut down the internet and so all systems relying on computers, including plane navigation etc. would go down causing worldwide chaos. It was genuinely believed that people should all switch off computers to avoid this. One or two smart people spoke up and said “um hey, this actually will only effect a few very outdated computers and they’ll just display the wrong date, so it probably won’t be harmful” but were largely ignored because people selling books about the end of the world were talking louder. In the end, absolutely nothing happened. Oh gosh. I’ve been a programmer working for various government agencies since the early 1990s and I can say with some confidence: NOTHING HAPPENED BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY HARD FIXING SHIT THAT MOST DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BROKEN ON 1-JAN-2000. One example I personally worked on: vaccination databases. My contract was with the CDC to coordinate immunization registries — you know, kids’ vaccine histories. What they got, when they got it, and (most importantly) which vaccines they were due to get next and when. These were state-wide registries, containing millions of records each. Most of these systems were designed in the 1970s and 1980s, and stored the child’s DOB year as only two digits. This means that — had we not fixed it — just about every child in all the databases I worked on would have SUDDENLY AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM 1-JAN-2000. In other words: these kids would suddenly be “too old” to receive critical vaccines. Okay, so that’s not a nuke plant exploding or airplanes dropping from the sky. In fact, nothing obvious would have occurred come Jan 1st. BUT Without the software advising doctors when to give vaccinations, an entire generation’s immunity to things like measles, mumps, smallpox (etc) would have been compromised. And nobody would even know there was a problem for months — possibly years — after. You think the fun & games caused by a few anti-vaxers is bad? Imagine whole populations going unvaccinated by accident… one case of measles and the death toll might be measured in millions. This is one example I KNOW to be true, because I was there. I also know that in the years leading up to 2000 there were ad-hoc discussion groups (particularly alt.risk) of amazed programmers and project managers that uncovered year-2000 traps… and fixed them. Quietly, without fanfare.  In many cases because admitting there was a problem would have resulted in a lawsuit by angry customers. But mostly because it was our job to fix those design flaws before anyone was inconvenienced or hurt. So, yeah… all that Y2K hysteria was for nothing, because programmers worked their asses off to make sure it was for nothing. Bolding mine. Absolutely true.  My Mom worked like crazy all throughout 1998 and 1999 on dozens of systems to avoid Y2K crashes. Nothing major happened because people worked to made sure it didn’t. Now if we could just harness that concept for some of the other major issues facing us today.   this meme came so far since i saw it this morning. god i love tumblr teaching tumblr about history. As a young Sys Admin during Y2K, I can confirm that it was SRS BZNS.  I worked for a major pharmaceutical company at the time.  They spent millions of dollars on consultant and programmer hours, not to mention their own employees’ time, to fix all their in-house software as well as replace it with new systems.  Sys Admins like myself were continually deploying patches, updating firmware, and deploying new systems in the months leading up to Y2K.  Once that was done, though, the programmers went home and cashed their checks. When the FATEFUL HOUR came along, it wasn’t just one hour.  For a global company with offices in dozens of countries, it was 24 hours of being alert and on-call.  I imagine that other large organizations had similar setups with entire IT departments working in shifts to monitor everything.  Everyone was on a hair trigger, too, so the slightest problem caused ALL HANDS ON DECK pages to go out. Yes, we had pagers. For hard numbers IDC’s 2006 calculation put the total US cost of remediation, before and after, at $147 billion - that’s in 1999 dollars.  That paid for an army of programmers, including calling up retired grandparents from the senior center because COBOL and FORTRAN apps from the ‘60s needed fixing. Also note that there were some problems, including $13 billion in remediation included in the figure above.  Some of these involved nuclear power plants, medical equipment, and “a customer at a New York State video rental store had a bill for $91,250, the cost of renting the movie ‘The General’s Daughter’ for 100 years.” Y2K was anything but nothing. Reblogging because this is a side to the story I had never heard. : REMEMBER Turn your computer off before midnight orn 12/31/99. BUY tamashiihiroka: forloveofreason: shananaomi: jaybushman: spytap: ralfmaximus: faisdm: the-most-calamitous: jibini: top-lotad-breeder: chocogoat: what. why? someone pls explain to me pls i wasnt born yet in 1999 why turn computer off before midnight? what happen if u dont? y2k lol everyone was like “the supervirus is gonna take over the world and ruin everything and end the world!!!” This is the oldest I’ve ever felt. Right now. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN YOU WEREN’T BORN YET IN 1999. Ahh the Millenium bug. It wasn’t a virus, it was an issue with how some old computers at the time were programmed to deal with dates. Basically some computers with older operating systems didn’t have anything in place to deal with the year reaching 99 and looping around to 00. It was believed that this inability to sync with the correct date would cause issues, and even crash entire systems the moment the date changed. People flipped out about it, convinced that the date discrepancy between netwoked systems would bring down computers everywhere and shut down the internet and so all systems relying on computers, including plane navigation etc. would go down causing worldwide chaos. It was genuinely believed that people should all switch off computers to avoid this. One or two smart people spoke up and said “um hey, this actually will only effect a few very outdated computers and they’ll just display the wrong date, so it probably won’t be harmful” but were largely ignored because people selling books about the end of the world were talking louder. In the end, absolutely nothing happened. Oh gosh. I’ve been a programmer working for various government agencies since the early 1990s and I can say with some confidence: NOTHING HAPPENED BECAUSE WE WORKED VERY HARD FIXING SHIT THAT MOST DEFINITELY WOULD HAVE BROKEN ON 1-JAN-2000. One example I personally worked on: vaccination databases. My contract was with the CDC to coordinate immunization registries — you know, kids’ vaccine histories. What they got, when they got it, and (most importantly) which vaccines they were due to get next and when. These were state-wide registries, containing millions of records each. Most of these systems were designed in the 1970s and 1980s, and stored the child’s DOB year as only two digits. This means that — had we not fixed it — just about every child in all the databases I worked on would have SUDDENLY AGED OUT OF THE PROGRAM 1-JAN-2000. In other words: these kids would suddenly be “too old” to receive critical vaccines. Okay, so that’s not a nuke plant exploding or airplanes dropping from the sky. In fact, nothing obvious would have occurred come Jan 1st. BUT Without the software advising doctors when to give vaccinations, an entire generation’s immunity to things like measles, mumps, smallpox (etc) would have been compromised. And nobody would even know there was a problem for months — possibly years — after. You think the fun & games caused by a few anti-vaxers is bad? Imagine whole populations going unvaccinated by accident… one case of measles and the death toll might be measured in millions. This is one example I KNOW to be true, because I was there. I also know that in the years leading up to 2000 there were ad-hoc discussion groups (particularly alt.risk) of amazed programmers and project managers that uncovered year-2000 traps… and fixed them. Quietly, without fanfare.  In many cases because admitting there was a problem would have resulted in a lawsuit by angry customers. But mostly because it was our job to fix those design flaws before anyone was inconvenienced or hurt. So, yeah… all that Y2K hysteria was for nothing, because programmers worked their asses off to make sure it was for nothing. Bolding mine. Absolutely true.  My Mom worked like crazy all throughout 1998 and 1999 on dozens of systems to avoid Y2K crashes. Nothing major happened because people worked to made sure it didn’t. Now if we could just harness that concept for some of the other major issues facing us today.   this meme came so far since i saw it this morning. god i love tumblr teaching tumblr about history. As a young Sys Admin during Y2K, I can confirm that it was SRS BZNS.  I worked for a major pharmaceutical company at the time.  They spent millions of dollars on consultant and programmer hours, not to mention their own employees’ time, to fix all their in-house software as well as replace it with new systems.  Sys Admins like myself were continually deploying patches, updating firmware, and deploying new systems in the months leading up to Y2K.  Once that was done, though, the programmers went home and cashed their checks. When the FATEFUL HOUR came along, it wasn’t just one hour.  For a global company with offices in dozens of countries, it was 24 hours of being alert and on-call.  I imagine that other large organizations had similar setups with entire IT departments working in shifts to monitor everything.  Everyone was on a hair trigger, too, so the slightest problem caused ALL HANDS ON DECK pages to go out. Yes, we had pagers. For hard numbers IDC’s 2006 calculation put the total US cost of remediation, before and after, at $147 billion - that’s in 1999 dollars.  That paid for an army of programmers, including calling up retired grandparents from the senior center because COBOL and FORTRAN apps from the ‘60s needed fixing. Also note that there were some problems, including $13 billion in remediation included in the figure above.  Some of these involved nuclear power plants, medical equipment, and “a customer at a New York State video rental store had a bill for $91,250, the cost of renting the movie ‘The General’s Daughter’ for 100 years.” Y2K was anything but nothing. Reblogging because this is a side to the story I had never heard.
Save
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theavc.tumblr.com/post/126364951791">theavc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2><b><a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/how-you-spell-berenstain-bears-could-be-proof-para-223615">How you spell “The Berenstain Bears” could be proof of parallel universes</a></b></h2> <blockquote><p>“You need to look up the Berenst#in Bears problem.”</p></blockquote> <p>It was this innocent comment left on a post about parallel universes that first pulled by <a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Rob Schwarz of </a><i><a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Stranger Dimensions</a> </i>into one of the internet’s strangest theories. It involves The Berenstein Bears,<i> </i>a loving family of anthropomorphized bears who taught children life lessons via hundreds of picture books and two TV shows. But the problem is they aren’t <i>The Berenstein Bears, </i>they’re <i>The Berenstain Bears.</i></p> <p>Though a startling number of people remember the name as BerenstEin, it’s in fact spelled BerenstAin, just like the authors Stan and Jan Berenstain. But is it possible that so many people are just wrong about the title? Back in 2012, <a href="http://woodbetweenworlds.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-berenstein-bears-we-are-living-in.html">blogger Reece</a>offered up another explanation: Some of us have recently crossed over from a parallel universe.</p> <p>He argues:</p> <blockquote><p>… at some time in the last 10 years or so, reality has been tampered with and history has been retroactively changed. The bears <i>really were </i>called the “BerenstEin Bears” when we were growing up, but now reality has been altered such that the name of the bears has been changed post hoc.</p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d8a52c2fd54b490097fe8868e0ca69db/tumblr_inline_nsvw8gFfCh1r079yu_540.jpg" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"/></figure><blockquote><p>Somehow, we have all undergone a π/2 phase change in all 4 dimensions so that we moved to the stAin hexadectant, while our counterparts moved to our hexadectant (stEin). They are standing around expressing their confusion about the “Berenstein Bears” and how they all remember “Berenstain Bears” on the covers growing up.</p></blockquote> <p>Those who remember the name as “Berenstain” are native to this “A” Universe, while those who are sure it’s “Berenstein” traveled over from the “E” Universe.</p> <p><b>More at avclub.com</b></p> </blockquote>: <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theavc.tumblr.com/post/126364951791">theavc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2><b><a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/how-you-spell-berenstain-bears-could-be-proof-para-223615">How you spell “The Berenstain Bears” could be proof of parallel universes</a></b></h2> <blockquote><p>“You need to look up the Berenst#in Bears problem.”</p></blockquote> <p>It was this innocent comment left on a post about parallel universes that first pulled by <a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Rob Schwarz of </a><i><a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Stranger Dimensions</a> </i>into one of the internet’s strangest theories. It involves The Berenstein Bears,<i> </i>a loving family of anthropomorphized bears who taught children life lessons via hundreds of picture books and two TV shows. But the problem is they aren’t <i>The Berenstein Bears, </i>they’re <i>The Berenstain Bears.</i></p> <p>Though a startling number of people remember the name as BerenstEin, it’s in fact spelled BerenstAin, just like the authors Stan and Jan Berenstain. But is it possible that so many people are just wrong about the title? Back in 2012, <a href="http://woodbetweenworlds.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-berenstein-bears-we-are-living-in.html">blogger Reece</a>offered up another explanation: Some of us have recently crossed over from a parallel universe.</p> <p>He argues:</p> <blockquote><p>… at some time in the last 10 years or so, reality has been tampered with and history has been retroactively changed. The bears <i>really were </i>called the “BerenstEin Bears” when we were growing up, but now reality has been altered such that the name of the bears has been changed post hoc.</p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d8a52c2fd54b490097fe8868e0ca69db/tumblr_inline_nsvw8gFfCh1r079yu_540.jpg" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"/></figure><blockquote><p>Somehow, we have all undergone a π/2 phase change in all 4 dimensions so that we moved to the stAin hexadectant, while our counterparts moved to our hexadectant (stEin). They are standing around expressing their confusion about the “Berenstein Bears” and how they all remember “Berenstain Bears” on the covers growing up.</p></blockquote> <p>Those who remember the name as “Berenstain” are native to this “A” Universe, while those who are sure it’s “Berenstein” traveled over from the “E” Universe.</p> <p><b>More at avclub.com</b></p> </blockquote>

<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theavc.tumblr.com/post/126364951791">theavc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2><b><a href="http://www.avclu...

Save
<p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theavc.tumblr.com/post/126364951791">theavc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2><b><a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/how-you-spell-berenstain-bears-could-be-proof-para-223615">How you spell “The Berenstain Bears” could be proof of parallel universes</a></b></h2> <blockquote><p>“You need to look up the Berenst#in Bears problem.”</p></blockquote> <p>It was this innocent comment left on a post about parallel universes that first pulled by <a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Rob Schwarz of </a><i><a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Stranger Dimensions</a> </i>into one of the internet’s strangest theories. It involves The Berenstein Bears,<i> </i>a loving family of anthropomorphized bears who taught children life lessons via hundreds of picture books and two TV shows. But the problem is they aren’t <i>The Berenstein Bears, </i>they’re <i>The Berenstain Bears.</i></p> <p>Though a startling number of people remember the name as BerenstEin, it’s in fact spelled BerenstAin, just like the authors Stan and Jan Berenstain. But is it possible that so many people are just wrong about the title? Back in 2012, <a href="http://woodbetweenworlds.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-berenstein-bears-we-are-living-in.html">blogger Reece</a>offered up another explanation: Some of us have recently crossed over from a parallel universe.</p> <p>He argues:</p> <blockquote><p>… at some time in the last 10 years or so, reality has been tampered with and history has been retroactively changed. The bears <i>really were </i>called the “BerenstEin Bears” when we were growing up, but now reality has been altered such that the name of the bears has been changed post hoc.</p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d8a52c2fd54b490097fe8868e0ca69db/tumblr_inline_nsvw8gFfCh1r079yu_540.jpg" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"/></figure><blockquote><p>Somehow, we have all undergone a π/2 phase change in all 4 dimensions so that we moved to the stAin hexadectant, while our counterparts moved to our hexadectant (stEin). They are standing around expressing their confusion about the “Berenstein Bears” and how they all remember “Berenstain Bears” on the covers growing up.</p></blockquote> <p>Those who remember the name as “Berenstain” are native to this “A” Universe, while those who are sure it’s “Berenstein” traveled over from the “E” Universe.</p> <p><b>More at avclub.com</b></p> </blockquote>: <p><a class="tumblr_blog" href="http://theavc.tumblr.com/post/126364951791">theavc</a>:</p> <blockquote> <h2><b><a href="http://www.avclub.com/article/how-you-spell-berenstain-bears-could-be-proof-para-223615">How you spell “The Berenstain Bears” could be proof of parallel universes</a></b></h2> <blockquote><p>“You need to look up the Berenst#in Bears problem.”</p></blockquote> <p>It was this innocent comment left on a post about parallel universes that first pulled by <a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Rob Schwarz of </a><i><a href="http://www.strangerdimensions.com/2015/01/21/the-berenstin-bears-problem-are-we-living-in-an-alternate-worldline/">Stranger Dimensions</a> </i>into one of the internet’s strangest theories. It involves The Berenstein Bears,<i> </i>a loving family of anthropomorphized bears who taught children life lessons via hundreds of picture books and two TV shows. But the problem is they aren’t <i>The Berenstein Bears, </i>they’re <i>The Berenstain Bears.</i></p> <p>Though a startling number of people remember the name as BerenstEin, it’s in fact spelled BerenstAin, just like the authors Stan and Jan Berenstain. But is it possible that so many people are just wrong about the title? Back in 2012, <a href="http://woodbetweenworlds.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-berenstein-bears-we-are-living-in.html">blogger Reece</a>offered up another explanation: Some of us have recently crossed over from a parallel universe.</p> <p>He argues:</p> <blockquote><p>… at some time in the last 10 years or so, reality has been tampered with and history has been retroactively changed. The bears <i>really were </i>called the “BerenstEin Bears” when we were growing up, but now reality has been altered such that the name of the bears has been changed post hoc.</p></blockquote> <figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/d8a52c2fd54b490097fe8868e0ca69db/tumblr_inline_nsvw8gFfCh1r079yu_540.jpg" data-orig-height="246" data-orig-width="608"/></figure><blockquote><p>Somehow, we have all undergone a π/2 phase change in all 4 dimensions so that we moved to the stAin hexadectant, while our counterparts moved to our hexadectant (stEin). They are standing around expressing their confusion about the “Berenstein Bears” and how they all remember “Berenstain Bears” on the covers growing up.</p></blockquote> <p>Those who remember the name as “Berenstain” are native to this “A” Universe, while those who are sure it’s “Berenstein” traveled over from the “E” Universe.</p> <p><b>More at avclub.com</b></p> </blockquote>
Save
<p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineedfeminismbecuz</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“But those aren’t real feminists!” <br/> Yes. Yes they are.<br/> Allow me to present the dictionary definition that is so often spoken of on tumblr:</p> <p>fem·i·nism<br/> ˈfeməˌnizəm/<br/> noun<br/> the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.</p> <p>Huh. That’s weird. It looks like the definition is not “literally equality”. I’ve been lied to! But I digress. Anyway, if that’s what defines a feminist, then anyone who advocates women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is a feminist. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. Being concerned for men’s rights really isn’t a necessity for being a feminist. You just need to seek equality with men, whatever that would mean for you. </p> Now I have a few problems with that, the biggest one being the fact that acknowledging men’s needs or fighting for men’s rights simply is not included in the definition of feminism. In fact, seeking equality with men assumes that men have all the rights they could ever possibly want and thus need no one to fight for them. Feminism does not, at its core, fight for men. Now if only there was some sort of ideology that fought for all genders equally. Something that fought for people in general rather than needing to specify gender and subsequently make another gender seem as though they had all their rights taken care of… Something like… Hmmmm… Oh! <p>Egalitarianism <br/>noun <br/>Advocacy of the equality of all people, especially in political, social, and economic life.</p> <p>There we go. There is a word for “literally equality” and it’s egalitarianism, not feminism. The definition of egalitarianism necessitates fighting for all rights, the definition of feminism does not.</p> <p>Now you may be saying “Hey! Feminists fight for men’s rights too!” And you’d be right, at least partially. Some people who identify as feminists do fight for men’s rights, but that is the perfect segue into my discussion about the No true Scotsman fallacy.</p> <p>From a Wikipedia summary:</p> <p>“No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).” </p><p>This is why you can’t just shrug your shoulders at “crazy feminists” who don’t fight for men’s rights by saying they aren’t “real feminists” or “true” feminists if you will. As long as they fulfill that rather short list of requirements listed above, they are true feminists, even if you don’t like or agree with them. Fighting for men’s rights simply isn’t part of the necessary equation.</p> <p>Meanwhile, egalitarianism *is* by definition the advocacy of rights for all. Do you not like the term egalitarianism because somebody who called themselves egalitarian wasn’t fair to women? Well it can be truly said that they were not true egalitarians, since they don’t adhere to the very definition of the word which does, unlike feminism, require equal advocacy.</p> So when somebody tells you they’re an egalitarian rather than a feminist, don’t act so shocked and offended and try to shoot them down by saying that feminism “literally means equality” and that the people they’ve had bad experiences with “aren’t real feminists” because they are, whether you like it or not.</blockquote>: WE HAVEA NOTRUE SCOTSMAN FOUL PLAYER ATTEMPTED TOCOUNTER REFUTATION WITH RHETORIC atlip.com <p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineedfeminismbecuz</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“But those aren’t real feminists!” <br/> Yes. Yes they are.<br/> Allow me to present the dictionary definition that is so often spoken of on tumblr:</p> <p>fem·i·nism<br/> ˈfeməˌnizəm/<br/> noun<br/> the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.</p> <p>Huh. That’s weird. It looks like the definition is not “literally equality”. I’ve been lied to! But I digress. Anyway, if that’s what defines a feminist, then anyone who advocates women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is a feminist. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. Being concerned for men’s rights really isn’t a necessity for being a feminist. You just need to seek equality with men, whatever that would mean for you. </p> Now I have a few problems with that, the biggest one being the fact that acknowledging men’s needs or fighting for men’s rights simply is not included in the definition of feminism. In fact, seeking equality with men assumes that men have all the rights they could ever possibly want and thus need no one to fight for them. Feminism does not, at its core, fight for men. Now if only there was some sort of ideology that fought for all genders equally. Something that fought for people in general rather than needing to specify gender and subsequently make another gender seem as though they had all their rights taken care of… Something like… Hmmmm… Oh! <p>Egalitarianism <br/>noun <br/>Advocacy of the equality of all people, especially in political, social, and economic life.</p> <p>There we go. There is a word for “literally equality” and it’s egalitarianism, not feminism. The definition of egalitarianism necessitates fighting for all rights, the definition of feminism does not.</p> <p>Now you may be saying “Hey! Feminists fight for men’s rights too!” And you’d be right, at least partially. Some people who identify as feminists do fight for men’s rights, but that is the perfect segue into my discussion about the No true Scotsman fallacy.</p> <p>From a Wikipedia summary:</p> <p>“No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).” </p><p>This is why you can’t just shrug your shoulders at “crazy feminists” who don’t fight for men’s rights by saying they aren’t “real feminists” or “true” feminists if you will. As long as they fulfill that rather short list of requirements listed above, they are true feminists, even if you don’t like or agree with them. Fighting for men’s rights simply isn’t part of the necessary equation.</p> <p>Meanwhile, egalitarianism *is* by definition the advocacy of rights for all. Do you not like the term egalitarianism because somebody who called themselves egalitarian wasn’t fair to women? Well it can be truly said that they were not true egalitarians, since they don’t adhere to the very definition of the word which does, unlike feminism, require equal advocacy.</p> So when somebody tells you they’re an egalitarian rather than a feminist, don’t act so shocked and offended and try to shoot them down by saying that feminism “literally means equality” and that the people they’ve had bad experiences with “aren’t real feminists” because they are, whether you like it or not.</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineed...

Save
<p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineedfeminismbecuz</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“But those aren’t real feminists!” <br/> Yes. Yes they are.<br/> Allow me to present the dictionary definition that is so often spoken of on tumblr:</p> <p>fem·i·nism<br/> ˈfeməˌnizəm/<br/> noun<br/> the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.</p> <p>Huh. That’s weird. It looks like the definition is not “literally equality”. I’ve been lied to! But I digress. Anyway, if that’s what defines a feminist, then anyone who advocates women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is a feminist. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. Being concerned for men’s rights really isn’t a necessity for being a feminist. You just need to seek equality with men, whatever that would mean for you. </p> Now I have a few problems with that, the biggest one being the fact that acknowledging men’s needs or fighting for men’s rights simply is not included in the definition of feminism. In fact, seeking equality with men assumes that men have all the rights they could ever possibly want and thus need no one to fight for them. Feminism does not, at its core, fight for men. Now if only there was some sort of ideology that fought for all genders equally. Something that fought for people in general rather than needing to specify gender and subsequently make another gender seem as though they had all their rights taken care of… Something like… Hmmmm… Oh! <p>Egalitarianism <br/>noun <br/>Advocacy of the equality of all people, especially in political, social, and economic life.</p> <p>There we go. There is a word for “literally equality” and it’s egalitarianism, not feminism. The definition of egalitarianism necessitates fighting for all rights, the definition of feminism does not.</p> <p>Now you may be saying “Hey! Feminists fight for men’s rights too!” And you’d be right, at least partially. Some people who identify as feminists do fight for men’s rights, but that is the perfect segue into my discussion about the No true Scotsman fallacy.</p> <p>From a Wikipedia summary:</p> <p>“No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).” </p><p>This is why you can’t just shrug your shoulders at “crazy feminists” who don’t fight for men’s rights by saying they aren’t “real feminists” or “true” feminists if you will. As long as they fulfill that rather short list of requirements listed above, they are true feminists, even if you don’t like or agree with them. Fighting for men’s rights simply isn’t part of the necessary equation.</p> <p>Meanwhile, egalitarianism *is* by definition the advocacy of rights for all. Do you not like the term egalitarianism because somebody who called themselves egalitarian wasn’t fair to women? Well it can be truly said that they were not true egalitarians, since they don’t adhere to the very definition of the word which does, unlike feminism, require equal advocacy.</p> So when somebody tells you they’re an egalitarian rather than a feminist, don’t act so shocked and offended and try to shoot them down by saying that feminism “literally means equality” and that the people they’ve had bad experiences with “aren’t real feminists” because they are, whether you like it or not.</blockquote>: WE HAVEA NOTRUE SCOTSMAN FOUL PLAYER ATTEMPTED TOCOUNTER REFUTATION WITH RHETORIC atlip.com <p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineedfeminismbecuz</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>“But those aren’t real feminists!” <br/> Yes. Yes they are.<br/> Allow me to present the dictionary definition that is so often spoken of on tumblr:</p> <p>fem·i·nism<br/> ˈfeməˌnizəm/<br/> noun<br/> the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.</p> <p>Huh. That’s weird. It looks like the definition is not “literally equality”. I’ve been lied to! But I digress. Anyway, if that’s what defines a feminist, then anyone who advocates women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men is a feminist. That’s it. That’s the only requirement. Being concerned for men’s rights really isn’t a necessity for being a feminist. You just need to seek equality with men, whatever that would mean for you. </p> Now I have a few problems with that, the biggest one being the fact that acknowledging men’s needs or fighting for men’s rights simply is not included in the definition of feminism. In fact, seeking equality with men assumes that men have all the rights they could ever possibly want and thus need no one to fight for them. Feminism does not, at its core, fight for men. Now if only there was some sort of ideology that fought for all genders equally. Something that fought for people in general rather than needing to specify gender and subsequently make another gender seem as though they had all their rights taken care of… Something like… Hmmmm… Oh! <p>Egalitarianism <br/>noun <br/>Advocacy of the equality of all people, especially in political, social, and economic life.</p> <p>There we go. There is a word for “literally equality” and it’s egalitarianism, not feminism. The definition of egalitarianism necessitates fighting for all rights, the definition of feminism does not.</p> <p>Now you may be saying “Hey! Feminists fight for men’s rights too!” And you’d be right, at least partially. Some people who identify as feminists do fight for men’s rights, but that is the perfect segue into my discussion about the No true Scotsman fallacy.</p> <p>From a Wikipedia summary:</p> <p>“No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim (“no Scotsman would do such a thing”), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule (“no true Scotsman would do such a thing”).” </p><p>This is why you can’t just shrug your shoulders at “crazy feminists” who don’t fight for men’s rights by saying they aren’t “real feminists” or “true” feminists if you will. As long as they fulfill that rather short list of requirements listed above, they are true feminists, even if you don’t like or agree with them. Fighting for men’s rights simply isn’t part of the necessary equation.</p> <p>Meanwhile, egalitarianism *is* by definition the advocacy of rights for all. Do you not like the term egalitarianism because somebody who called themselves egalitarian wasn’t fair to women? Well it can be truly said that they were not true egalitarians, since they don’t adhere to the very definition of the word which does, unlike feminism, require equal advocacy.</p> So when somebody tells you they’re an egalitarian rather than a feminist, don’t act so shocked and offended and try to shoot them down by saying that feminism “literally means equality” and that the people they’ve had bad experiences with “aren’t real feminists” because they are, whether you like it or not.</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://ineedfeminismbecuz.tumblr.com/post/124366255960/but-those-arent-real-feminists-yes-yes-they" class="tumblr_blog">ineed...

Save