If you have to go five minutes out of your way then spend five minutes filling up, that's fifteen minutes. That's not uncommon, not everyone has a gas station on their route to and from every place they go.
The costs of such a project -- downward pressure on working class wages, elevated levels of crime among urban poor, dangerous and degraded public schools, etc. -- are not born by writers at The Atlantic, or economists like Bryan Caplan. They know semi-literate peasants pose no threat to their livelihood and they don't feel any more solidarity with another American than would with urban poor in Bangladesh. That people in positions of influence can believe such things is a damning indictment of the United States.
In historical terms, there is an important distinction between inimicus vs hostis; that is, hostility between individuals within a given political order vs hostility to the political order itself. To someone who views a country as nothing more than a utilitarian vehicle for atomized and rootless individuals to maximize their earning potential, this distinction vanishes and thus someone like Bryan Caplan -- a rootless cosmopolitan in every sense of the word -- can publicly and proudly endorse to the destruction and displacement of a people in their own country.
People like this are not men with legitimate opinions and ambitions -- a man who is a traitor to his own people is by definition an evil man and a criminal. He is categorically animated by malice and he's an unjust hostis (enemy) of his own society.
I also use Django without any ORM and with Jinja2 and I'm taking baby steps towards completely abandoning Django and moving to Flask. For me, the primary benefit is that Flask being so much smaller and simpler than Django means you can understand the entire codebase without an extraordinary amount of effort.
I'm curious as to why you stick with Django (other than having projects already begun relying on it)? Without the ORM and with the templates, there's is not much I get out of Django.
There's no strong reason to suggest that this difference is due to anything other than social pressure.
The fact that such social pressure to enforce gender roles exists and the fact that such pressure independently arose in every advanced civilization to ever exist overwhelmingly suggests it is an intrinsic feature of the human race. Certainly, this would suggest the only way to overthrow the gender roles you despise is for some governing apparatus to coerce behaviour (which we already do to some extent); organically, humans will organize themselves in what you would call a "sexist" way.
Of course, even then, the shelf life on the sexless world you envision is short. American hegemony is waning and none of the candidates to fill the power vacuum will have much time for the 'isms that so occupy your mind.
"Cultural Marxism" is an ahistorical term and suggesting deracinated American nerds whining about "sexism in tech" are in any way successors to the likes of Stalin is absurd. Marxists viewed this kind of thing as an effort by bourgeoisie money-driven "democracies" to neutralize and discredit revolutionary consciousness. Marxist-Leninism, as it actually existed, was masculine, authoritarian, implicitly violent, autocratic, militaristic, and overwhelmingly white. They considered people who act like American liberals to be mentally ill or criminals.
The American Left are Jacobin libertines - they owe nothing in their program to Marxism.
The point is that Marxism "as it actually existed" isn't what this term is referring to. It's referring to Marxist theory, applied to dialectical struggles beyond just the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
And Marxist theory is definitely not "masculine" or "authoritarian". Marx was always critical of the family and stressed the fact that marriage was a form of exploitation, famously comparing it to prostitution. This is why many Marxists have called for the abolition of the family, and why Marxist-Feminism exists -- it's just an extension of dialectical materialism with primacy placed on gender relations.
Rebecca J. Rosen’s suggestion that men take a pledge to appear only on panels that include at least one female speaker again reinforced the idea that women are underrepresented in this area. In fact, in pointing out that it’s unlikely no women are qualified for these panels, and yet there are still no women appearing on them, Rebecca is reinforcing the idea that this is an unfair and unexplainable issue for women to fight against
The idea that no women on a conference panel implies the conference organizers believe no women are even "qualified" (whatever that means) to be on the panel and, ipso facto, sexism must be at play is on its face so stupid and devoid of meaning that it reads like a paragraph from a contrived newspaper used as a prop in a bad movie.
You sound awfully silly saying that race is a "meaningless concept" and then knowingly talking about a "white person" the very next sentence.
Your own mind subconsciously knows the nice ideas you want to believe are nonsense. Interestingly, that is analogous to the otherwise open-minded subjects of the study at hand who subconsciously favour their own.
Just because the concept is meaningless in the real world doesn't mean it's not a concept who's definition is widely understood.
Should I have put "white person" in quotes? Should I had phrased it like "what would commonly be called a "white person"".
I felt that would be overly pedantic of me and besides you are missing the point: "white people" do exist, it's just wrong to assign any shared attributes to them other than "looks like a white person". And by the way, I don't mean "wrong" in any kind of moral sense, I mean wrong in terms of "factually incorrect".
If he had talked about ghosts instead of "white people" would I have sounded awfully silly if I had said "ghosts don't exist. Ghosts are frequently just photography artifacts or sleep paralysis hallucinations." because I used the word "ghosts" in the next sentence?
So you think that the pre-scientific idea of categorizing people by skin colour and nose and eye features is valid and that the scientific understanding from genetics is "nonsense" that I "want to believe"?
That's both ridiculously presumptuous and ... well, stupid.
