The stupidity and ignorance of this woman is just breath-taking. How much of an idiot do you have to be to conclude from differing results that it must be discrimination? Probably someone who is really stupid who got her job due to her gender, and who therefore cannot imagine anyone getting a job based on merit. For she has none.
By the way, she used to work for New Scientist.
When people tell you to 'trust the science', they don't mean the actual science. They meant trust absolutely vile, putrid creatures like this greasy-haired shrew.
But the newsroom is already packed with white people. In a city that's ~13% black. (no, I'm not capitalizing the word black... not even for a quote, fuck off) So clearly something is awry.
If the city is only 13% black, then statistically speaking yeah, no shit your hiring numbers will lean heavier one way naturally. That's how statistics work you .. uhg. What she said is so incredulously stupid, I can't think of an adequate insult to call her.
She writes for Nature ? Isn't that... a scientific publication ? Shouldn't she know that just because she observes a result, it doesn't mean she can just guesswork the cause ?
The stupidity and ignorance of this woman is just breath-taking. How much of an idiot do you have to be to conclude from differing results that it must be discrimination? Probably someone who is really stupid who got her job due to her gender, and who therefore cannot imagine anyone getting a job based on merit. For she has none.
By the way, she used to work for New Scientist.
When people tell you to 'trust the science', they don't mean the actual science. They meant trust absolutely vile, putrid creatures like this greasy-haired shrew.
It's called disparate impact theory, and it is the go-to justification for every anti-white/male policy forwarded by the left.
It is also communism.
"They/them" or just that ugly?
If the city is only 13% black, then statistically speaking yeah, no shit your hiring numbers will lean heavier one way naturally. That's how statistics work you .. uhg. What she said is so incredulously stupid, I can't think of an adequate insult to call her.
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
She writes for Nature ? Isn't that... a scientific publication ? Shouldn't she know that just because she observes a result, it doesn't mean she can just guesswork the cause ?