FSTDT Forums

Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 09:05:49 pm

Title: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 09:05:49 pm
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here (https://diversitymemo.com/)).  Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:

http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/ (http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/)

Now, this might not be that big a deal... but 60 women are also thinking about suing Google, claiming pay discrimination:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-women-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/08/google-women-discrimination-class-action-lawsuit)

And over 250 people have joined a class action suit against Google for age discrimination:

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/08/nearly-300-have-joined-google-age-case.html?page=all (https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/08/nearly-300-have-joined-google-age-case.html?page=all)

Combine all this with the investigations they're already dealing with, and I have to say I'm not envying Alphabet right now.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 09, 2017, 09:54:51 pm
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here (https://diversitymemo.com/)).  Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:


Fixed that for you
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 09, 2017, 11:22:57 pm
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here (https://diversitymemo.com/)).  Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:


Fixed that for you

(http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/attachment.php?attachmentid=1070518)

I guess science is sexist (http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/) now.

Quote
The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Its main points are that: 1. Neither the left nor the right gets diversity completely right; 2. The social science evidence on implicit and explicit bias has been wildly oversold and is far weaker than most people seem to realize; 3. Google has, perhaps unintentionally, created an authoritarian atmosphere that has stifled discussion of these issues by stigmatizing anyone who disagrees as a bigot and instituted authoritarian policies of reverse discrimination; 4. The policies and atmosphere systematically ignore biological, cognitive, educational, and social science research on the nature and sources of individual and group differences. I cannot speak to the atmosphere at Google, but: 1. Give that the author gets everything else right, I am pretty confident he is right about that too; 2. It is a painfully familiar atmosphere, one that is a lot like academia.

Quote
I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence, see here.)

Quote
An anonymous male software engineer recently distributed a memo titled ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’. Within hours, this memo unleashed a firestorm of negative commentary, most of which ignored the memo’s evidence-based arguments. Among commentators who claim the memo’s empirical facts are wrong, I haven’t read a single one who understand sexual selection theory, animal behavior, and sex differences research.

Quote
For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Moreover, they are stated quite carefully and dispassionately. Its key claims about sex differences are especially well-supported by large volumes of research across species, cultures, and history. I know a little about sex differences research. On the topic of evolution and human sexuality, I’ve taught for 28 years, written 4 books and over 100 academic publications, given 190 talks, reviewed papers for over 50 journals, and mentored 11 Ph.D. students. Whoever the memo’s author is, he has obviously read a fair amount about these topics. Graded fairly, his memo would get at least an A- in any masters’ level psychology course. It is consistent with the scientific state of the art on sex differences. (Blank slate gender feminism is advocacy rather than science: no gender feminist I’ve met has ever been able to give a coherent answer to the question ‘What empirical findings would convince you that psychological sex differences evolved?’)

Quote
As a woman who’s worked in academia and within STEM, I didn’t find the memo offensive or sexist in the least. I found it to be a well thought out document, asking for greater tolerance for differences in opinion, and treating people as individuals instead of based on group membership.

Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.

For something like this, the question we should ask ourselves is "how sound are his claims", not "do they agree with my ideology?" And it looks like his claims are sound. If you have evidence that he may not be right, I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 12:31:01 am
A blatantly right wing source that has articles that call "leftists" hypocrites regarding Islam (http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/leftist-hypocrisy-islam-setting-stage-violence/), rails against "SJWs," calls the gender pay gap a first world problem and argues against it with typical reductionism (http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/), full on denies the existence of white priveledge (http://quillette.com/2017/06/24/skepticism-white-privilege/) and takes the term "regressive left" seriously. (http://quillette.com/2017/06/04/manchesters-children-regressive-left/)

Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.

A quick look at Geoffrey Miller's Twitter account (https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en) shows him regularly (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895180127113551874) making (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895059054942449664) typical (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895052824794542080) alt-right (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894986041047883776) statements (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894224207093141504) about free speech (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894144962031493120), "western civilization" (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894086327846744064) and "SJWs. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/893917783817408512) He also agreed with comparing Damore's firing with being a victim of a terror attack (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894913208548569088) and has shown pride in being featured on Breitbart. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894820023050653697) (So. Many. Links.)

David Schmitt didn't see a red flag from Damore being interviewed by Stephen Molyneux. (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895143379276845057) He also accuses "the political left" of being anti-science in regards to evolution (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895045714069401600) and regularly (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894839715563786241) excuses regressive views (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894252488806862852) on women as the result of evolution. He also retweeted this fucking meme (https://twitter.com/garwboy/status/886644806352588800).

Lee Jussim regularly writes blog posts (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201603/rabble-rouser-roundup-campus-free-speech-widely-threatened) repeating the claim that free speech is under attack on college campuses. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201511/mostly-leftist-threats-mostly-campus-speech) He also regularly posts right wing blogs about gender gaps, (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/gender-bias-in-science-or-biased-claims-gender-bias) feminism (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/when-is-feminist-not-feminist) and liberal bias. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/liberal-bias-distorts-scientific-psychology-and-education) He also used this image (https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/field_blog_entry_images/tolerant%20liberal%2C%20Tom%20Fernandez_0.jpg?itok=XVmZJjHK) in multiple articles.

Debra Soh thinks gender neutral parenting is bad. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gender-neutral-parenting-20170106-story.html) She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/) and has stated that she thinks "identity politics" is attacking science. (http://www.playboy.com/articles/identity-politics-have-no-place)

You're citing right wing sources instead of actually reading the fucking memo yourself and citing it directly.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 10, 2017, 01:26:58 am
A blatantly right wing source that has articles that call "leftists" hypocrites regarding Islam (http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/leftist-hypocrisy-islam-setting-stage-violence/), rails against "SJWs," calls the gender pay gap a first world problem and argues against it with typical reductionism (http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/), full on denies the existence of white priveledge (http://quillette.com/2017/06/24/skepticism-white-privilege/) and takes the term "regressive left" seriously. (http://quillette.com/2017/06/04/manchesters-children-regressive-left/)

Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.

A quick look at Geoffrey Miller's Twitter account (https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en) shows him regularly (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895180127113551874) making (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895059054942449664) typical (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895052824794542080) alt-right (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894986041047883776) statements (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894224207093141504) about free speech (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894144962031493120), "western civilization" (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894086327846744064) and "SJWs. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/893917783817408512) He also agreed with comparing Damore's firing with being a victim of a terror attack (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894913208548569088) and has shown pride in being featured on Breitbart. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894820023050653697) (So. Many. Links.)

David Schmitt didn't see a red flag from Damore being interviewed by Stephen Molyneux. (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895143379276845057) He also accuses "the political left" of being anti-science in regards to evolution (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895045714069401600) and regularly (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894839715563786241) excuses regressive views (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894252488806862852) on women as the result of evolution. He also retweeted this fucking meme (https://twitter.com/garwboy/status/886644806352588800).

Lee Jussim regularly writes blog posts (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201603/rabble-rouser-roundup-campus-free-speech-widely-threatened) repeating the claim that free speech is under attack on college campuses. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201511/mostly-leftist-threats-mostly-campus-speech) He also regularly posts right wing blogs about gender gaps, (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/gender-bias-in-science-or-biased-claims-gender-bias) feminism (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/when-is-feminist-not-feminist) and liberal bias. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/liberal-bias-distorts-scientific-psychology-and-education) He also used this image (https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/field_blog_entry_images/tolerant%20liberal%2C%20Tom%20Fernandez_0.jpg?itok=XVmZJjHK) in multiple articles.

Debra Soh thinks gender neutral parenting is bad. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gender-neutral-parenting-20170106-story.html) She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/) and has stated that she thinks "identity politics" is attacking science. (http://www.playboy.com/articles/identity-politics-have-no-place)

You're citing right wing sources instead of actually reading the fucking memo yourself.

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/995/436/e5c.jpg)

(I was tempted to repeat the image four or five times, but I don't want to be redundant)

Is this really all you've got? You expect me to take you seriously when all you have is attempted character assassination? Don't make me laugh.

I couldn't help but notice a distinct lack of evidence in your post. If you want to attack my article, fine. I'd love to have a good debate based on science and logic. But that's not what you posted. You posted a whole bunch of links to irrelevant baloney, expecting me to try and counter your gish gallop of well poisoning. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not that kind of gal.

I'm not even angry, just disappointed. If you want to keep doing this, then go ahead. Keep making personal attacks. Keep talking about how accidents of birth determine truth and accuracy. Keep sidetracking everybody with unrelated topics. You're only digging your own grave.

If you want me to take you seriously, then base your arguments on science. You can apply labels and play politics all you want, but at the end of the day, if that's all you have, then you've already lost.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 01:36:19 am
That's not ad hom, dumbass. I was saying your source was biased and pointing out reasons why it's a bad source. Ad hom would be if I said that your argument was invalid because your face is ugly. You were the one arguing. I was arguing against you by pointing out that your source is shit, not by insulting you.

And because I have to repeat my point: Read the memo yourself and cite it directly if it's so easy to prove that its not sexist. THAT was my point. The evidence backing up my point was proof of why your source was bad.

Jesus fuck.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 10, 2017, 01:48:46 am
That's not ad hom, dumbass. I was saying your source was biased and pointing out reasons why it's a bad source. Ad hom would be if I said that your argument was invalid because your face is ugly. You were the one arguing. I was arguing against you by pointing out that your source is shit, not by insulting you.

And because I have to repeat my point: Read the memo yourself and cite it directly if it's so easy to prove that its not sexist. THAT was my point. The evidence backing up my point was proof of why your source was bad.

Jesus fuck.

If you think my source is bad, then disprove it. Don't just scream about the website and the authors. You can't win a scientific debate by attacking somebody's political opinions. If you think it's wrong, then show me the money. Give us an article or a study. Hell, even a paywall would at least be something.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 01:56:51 am
I did. By pointing out the right wing views of the writers and the website, I showed that the source is biased.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on August 10, 2017, 02:14:46 am
Is this the same person who had the problem with Rationalwiki or was that someone else?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 02:20:03 am
Is this the same person who had the problem with Rationalwiki or was that someone else?

If the theory that she's Paragon on a new account is true, then yes.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 10, 2017, 02:31:59 am
Whoever did that memo doesn't know how to cite sources.

Because he repeatedly presents claims as facts but never provides evidence for any of his right-wing biases being correct, makes claims about leftists and feminists (including implying that feminists are communists?) and puts footnotes on them but instead of citations those are just more of his claims without any proof.

This is an opinion piece that is masquerading as a scientific paper. And doing it poorly.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on August 10, 2017, 03:20:51 am
Is this really all you've got? You expect me to take you seriously when all you have is attempted character assassination? Don't make me laugh.

I couldn't help but notice a distinct lack of evidence in your post. If you want to attack my article, fine. I'd love to have a good debate based on science and logic. But that's not what you posted. You posted a whole bunch of links to irrelevant baloney, expecting me to try and counter your gish gallop of well poisoning. Hate to break it to you, but I'm not that kind of gal.

I'm not even angry, just disappointed. If you want to keep doing this, then go ahead. Keep making personal attacks. Keep talking about how accidents of birth determine truth and accuracy. Keep sidetracking everybody with unrelated topics. You're only digging your own grave.

If you want me to take you seriously, then base your arguments on science. You can apply labels and play politics all you want, but at the end of the day, if that's all you have, then you've already lost.

8 year olds dude.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Katsuro on August 10, 2017, 03:25:15 am

Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.


That's right I forgot these days white men aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything, especially if they disagree with you.  Dismissing someone's opinion off-hand based on their race and/or gender is definitely not in itself hypocritically racist and/or sexist. Nope.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 03:25:38 am
8 year olds dude.

Holy fuck, I forgot about that. You win the thread.

That's right I forgot these days white men aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything, especially if they disagree with you.  Dismissing someone's opinion off-hand based on their race and/or gender is definitely not in itself hypocritically racist and/or sexist. Nope.

Sure... if that was all I said. My point was to say that maybe they should have found people to make statements that weren't just white men. Three of the four writers are arguing from the same point of view. Perhaps they should have asked more than one woman or at least found someone, regardless of gender or ethnicity, that was an expert on the subjects the memo brought up. And none of the four were. Only one was a social scientist and her field is human sexuality (and, in fairness, what I saw from her in that field shows that she knows what she's talking about in regards to her field).
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 10, 2017, 06:42:21 am
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here (https://diversitymemo.com/)).  Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:


Fixed that for you
I guess science is I am sexist now.

Fixed that for you again. So many typos tonight, have you been huffing glue?

And Cloud pointed it out already, but you're presenting *opinions* as "science." Read your own quotes, a lot of "I think" and "as a woman, I don't find." You do this so that you can argue that "science" supports this sexist ass-hat at google. You're about as easy to read as an 8-year old, dude.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 10, 2017, 12:37:52 pm
8 year olds dude.

Holy fuck, I forgot about that. You win the thread.

That's right I forgot these days white men aren't allowed to have an opinion on anything, especially if they disagree with you.  Dismissing someone's opinion off-hand based on their race and/or gender is definitely not in itself hypocritically racist and/or sexist. Nope.

Sure... if that was all I said. My point was to say that maybe they should have found people to make statements that weren't just white men. Three of the four writers are arguing from the same point of view. Perhaps they should have asked more than one woman or at least found someone, regardless of gender or ethnicity, that was an expert on the subjects the memo brought up. And none of the four were. Only one was a social scientist and her field is human sexuality (and, in fairness, what I saw from her in that field shows that she knows what she's talking about in regards to her field).

"Point of view?" In science, a point of view is meaningless by itself. If there is no evidence to support it, then it can be dismissed.

Still, at least you're talking about something more pertinent to the discussion than their political opinions. On the other hand, I haven't seen any actual refutations of either the article I posted or the original memo.

Whoever did that memo doesn't know how to cite sources.

Because he repeatedly presents claims as facts but never provides evidence for any of his right-wing biases being correct, makes claims about leftists and feminists (including implying that feminists are communists?) and puts footnotes on them but instead of citations those are just more of his claims without any proof.

This is an opinion piece that is masquerading as a scientific paper. And doing it poorly.

See, now this is what I'm talking about. Somebody actually discussing the memo.

But I'm afraid you're wrong. He does have sources to back up his claims. Click some of his links, and you'll see.

You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing a supposedly sexist memo (which can be read here (https://diversitymemo.com/)).  Turns out, he doesn't like being fired for his opinions, and he plans to sue:


Fixed that for you
I guess science is I am sexist now.

Fixed that for you again. So many typos tonight, have you been huffing glue?

And Cloud pointed it out already, but you're presenting *opinions* as "science." Read your own quotes, a lot of "I think" and "as a woman, I don't find." You do this so that you can argue that "science" supports this sexist ass-hat at google. You're about as easy to read as an 8-year old, dude.

They're not just opinions, they point out how what he says is scientifically sound. If you have evidence indicating otherwise, then show it to me.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 10, 2017, 01:44:46 pm
What links? What evidence?

I read the memo that you linked and I see no actual sources.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 10, 2017, 03:01:21 pm
What links? What evidence?

I read the memo that you linked and I see no actual sources.

You sure? Do you see the underlined bits? Because those contain links that back him up.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 10, 2017, 03:31:42 pm
Ok, now I found a version that had the links. Some of the links.

It's still making several claims without providing sources to them. Like that "Marxists" are waging a racial warfare. Or that the differences between men and women are universal and in all cultures. And the weird bit about how "Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males" presumably refers to the one horrible and unscientific experiment where a doctor wanted to see if gender is biological or if you can turn a boy into a girl by castrating them and raising them as a girl. ...If that is what it refers to then it is misleading and possibly an attempt to discredit transpeople.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on August 10, 2017, 03:40:51 pm
The way I see it, citing those links is like trying to defend your position by citing phrenology.

Sometimes these ideas are completely repugnant, and you only need to read "Marxists are waging racial warfare" and decide this is disgusting on your own rather than trying to scientifically refute that.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 03:52:55 pm
It doesn't help that the "scientific refutation" is little more than Social Darwinism.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 10, 2017, 03:57:53 pm
MY BACK ITCHES.

That is all.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on August 10, 2017, 06:58:54 pm
Ok, now I found a version that had the links. Some of the links.

It's still making several claims without providing sources to them. Like that "Marxists" are waging a racial warfare. Or that the differences between men and women are universal and in all cultures. And the weird bit about how "Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males" presumably refers to the one horrible and unscientific experiment where a doctor wanted to see if gender is biological or if you can turn a boy into a girl by castrating them and raising them as a girl. ...If that is what it refers to then it is misleading and possibly an attempt to discredit transpeople.

Oh fuck are you sure that just wasn't the plot summary of the 'Wasp Factory'? Although there was a twist.

Edit:

Also I think you are all way off the handle to dismiss 'cultural marxists' as a thing because can't you tell after the cold war the USSR didn't really dissolve and become a theocratic despotic petro-state but rather it's all a front and a way to infiltrate the west with subversive cultural marxists. When the signal is given it's all back on baby
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Murdin on August 10, 2017, 07:51:37 pm
... alright, I'm doing it, but I swear this is the last time.

I can count 33 links in Damore's pamphlet.

Twelve of these links are overtly political rather than scientific or even sociological in nature. Mostly stuff like opinion pieces, blog articles, or even forum posts. This includes the infamous "War against Boys" by professional troll Christina Hoff Summers, and rarely rises much higher in terms of quality.

Two links to articles about the characteristics of "PC supporters" and libertarians, respectively. While biased and reeking of us-versus-them mentality, these are IMO too plainly descriptive to fit into the above category.

Six of them are used to explain or illustrate a particular notion in more detail. These do not qualify as sources for his statements, since they are not supposed to make any statement in the first place.

Two links have nothing to do with the point that they are used to support: "men suffer 93% of work-related deaths" (probably true, but sourcing is hard) and "some of the Right deny science" (cheap bait).

This leaves us with:

Nothing too earth-shattering, I reckon. Meanwhile, Damore's long list of unsourced statements include such gems as:

tl,dr: it's mostly just another piece of concern-trollish right-wing propaganda, tailored to the "rationalist" aesthetic and peppered with insincere deal-sweeteners on diversity and the inflexibility of gender roles. The usual mix of sourced mostly-uncontroversial truths, unsourced polemical bullshit, and complete batshit insanity that almost seems designed to coax people to pick a side : either total acceptance or total rejection. Of the many opinion pieces and editorials I've read on the subject, only one refused to take the bait and pointed out that Damore's charlatanism was built on the distortion of a solid base of facts.

Oh, and it's also chock-full of logical fallacies, emotional appeals and double standards. Sure, James, people disagree with you because we refuse to "acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination". You should be more careful with the flame wars, though ; that much straw has to be a fire hazard. My personal favorite is the part where he denounces empathy as irrational, shortly after trying to leverage it towards white males and conservatives ; there's the kind of libertarian moral clarity we weak-minded fools call hypocrisy. I could go on for pages if I wanted to.

For what it matters, I actually think James Damore was mostly being sincere in his memo. It's just that he absorbed the tropes, mannerisms, sophisms and self-deceptions of... well, his own echo chamber. Hey, I'm actually fine with his tl;dr! The only part I would really object to is the idea that any kind of positive discrimination is automatically "most authoritarian". Like any other model of society, ours comes with a fair number of built-in imbalances in power and authority, and this is why stuff like taxes on the wealthy or "affirmative action" are needed as necessary evils. I guess I should have stopped there, instead of pushing forward to see what he was actually arguing.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on August 10, 2017, 08:03:29 pm
Fuck Murdin,

 You are like the mythological Arthur, but rather than Britain you defend the internet and rather than fight Saxons you fight bullshit.

Not content with tattooing your name on both of paragon's buttcheeks you have fired up the old needle gun to get to work on Lana. Fuck it check to see whether that's you're signature just above the hip.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 10, 2017, 08:54:56 pm
So, who is willing to take 3:1 odds on Lana not posting in this thread again, only to make the same argument fourweeks later in some other thread?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 10, 2017, 09:10:43 pm
Queenie, that's a sucker bet and you know it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 10, 2017, 09:15:48 pm
Queenie, that's a sucker bet and you know it.

Ravy, stop trying to hamper my internet gambling ring.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 10, 2017, 09:23:52 pm
Ok, now I found a version that had the links. Some of the links.

It's still making several claims without providing sources to them. Like that "Marxists" are waging a racial warfare. Or that the differences between men and women are universal and in all cultures. And the weird bit about how "Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males" presumably refers to the one horrible and unscientific experiment where a doctor wanted to see if gender is biological or if you can turn a boy into a girl by castrating them and raising them as a girl. ...If that is what it refers to then it is misleading and possibly an attempt to discredit transpeople.

Research indicates that many gender differences are at least partly biological. It has been determined that men and women have different brain structures (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women). Of course, this isn't to say that all women are "X" while all men are "Y", but it does indicate that gender differences aren't entirely socially constructed.

The way I see it, citing those links is like trying to defend your position by citing phrenology.

Sometimes these ideas are completely repugnant, and you only need to read "Marxists are waging racial warfare" and decide this is disgusting on your own rather than trying to scientifically refute that.

Yeah, that does sound pretty iffy. But I fail to see how that refutes his entire memo. James Watson has some questionable ideas, but they don't invalidate his body of work.

It doesn't help that the "scientific refutation" is little more than Social Darwinism.

How so?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 10, 2017, 11:44:40 pm
How so?

Of course people rejecting the idea that the causes of gender inequality are societal and discrimination in favor of citing evolution doesn't make you think of people citing evolution to excuse racism. Of fucking course.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on August 10, 2017, 11:55:40 pm
The stopped clock effect may apply in some cases, Lana, but that is not a reason to think the clock is right in all other cases. Let's use the example of the Nazis - the Nazis banned smoking, and had some animal welfare policies. Does this make the Nazis somehow okay or deserve to be looked at in the full scope as an equal and possibly just group? No, they're the fucking Nazis; just because there might well be a potentially good position in there doesn't mean you should exalt this person or group.

Because they could well have reached that position for some utterly questionable or detestable reasons; the Nazis for example saw the smoking business as an unhealthy Jewish conspiracy, and were primarily against it because it was a personal wank issue of Hitler himself.

Would you say the same about some other questionable materials Lana? He shares the same ideas as a number of other memos and books, which are simply more explicit about the ideas he tried to let slide through using more subtle methods, which ultimately failed and he was called out as a conservative conspiratorial lunatic, resulting in his firing.

Tell me, has a sane man ever written about liberal media bias and cultural marxism, and not at the same time held thoroughly repugnant beliefs?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on August 11, 2017, 12:22:06 am
Murdin:

(http://i.imgur.com/uvFkpkz.gif)

Hey Lana Direct Question:  What do you think of Murdin's post?  Will you admit you were wrong now that it's proven you were?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 11, 2017, 02:40:46 am
Thank you for your service Murdin. o7

Edit: https://www.quora.com/What-do-scientists-think-about-the-biological-claims-made-in-the-anti-diversity-document-written-by-a-Google-employee-in-August-2017/answer/Suzanne-Sadedin?share=13d40fd1&srid=Q

This is worth reading.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 12, 2017, 01:12:50 am
So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 12, 2017, 01:35:20 am
So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?

Oh, it's not dead. Rather, this forum has always been rather low on my list of priorities.

How so?

Of course people rejecting the idea that the causes of gender inequality are societal and discrimination in favor of citing evolution doesn't make you think of people citing evolution to excuse racism. Of fucking course.

He wasn't rejecting them, he was just saying that they weren't the only causes.

Quote
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

Emphasis mine. He further clarifies:

Quote
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.

He even suggests other means of helping women to succeed in Google. Does that sound like he thinks we're inherently inferior? Besides, I always thought the idea behind diversity was the celebration of differences, not the rejection of them.

Boiling down inequality to the notion that "some people are just naturally superior" is unreasonable, no doubt. But there's a similar, more insidious lack of reason in the opposite notion: that bias and discrimination are the only reasons for societal inequality, and that even entertaining the idea that there might be other factors involved is a sign of a right-wing extremist. That kind of thinking is reductionist and downright unscientific. There's a word for believing that an idea is unassailable and that anybody who questions it is morally and/or intellectually inferior: dogmatism.

If you believe that his memo is incorrect, then why don't you approach it from a scientific point of view? See if there are any problems in his ideas. Question the underlying theory. Look at it like a scientist would. Much like how the only substance that can cut a diamond is another diamond, it takes science to tackle science.

Also, can we please talk about this without being rude or nasty?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 12, 2017, 01:46:47 am
Also, can we please talk about this without being rude or nasty?

Paragon, shut the fuck up or address Murdin's post and Askold's link.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: dpareja on August 12, 2017, 01:47:42 am
So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?

Trying to figure out where my cheque from Putin is for shilling for him on this forum.  :P :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on August 12, 2017, 02:16:59 am


Oh, it's not dead. Rather, this forum has always been rather low on my list of priorities.

You say on your billionth sock puppet account.

I asked you a direct question, rules say you have to answer it.

So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?

Probably going to see Dunkirk.  I've wanted to for a while and I've finally got some disposable income.

Also, can we please talk about this without being rude or nasty?

I reiterate, 8 year olds dude.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 12, 2017, 10:03:15 am
My plans?  Top up my phone, get more Kraken, and play some fucking Guild Wars 2.  I'm maxing out my alts really damned fast, thanks to birthday boosters and dailies.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 12, 2017, 11:44:12 am
My plans?  Top up my phone, get more Kraken, and play some fucking Guild Wars 2.  I'm maxing out my alts really damned fast, thanks to birthday boosters and dailies.

My plan is to have my typical Saturday morning (nice, cooked breakfast, french-pressed coffee, Wait Wait). Then, I plan to hit the gym, and later join a few friends for some Pokemon Go-ing. Gonna catch me a Zapdos
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 12, 2017, 12:50:54 pm
Worldcon. Did a show on weapons and injuries, drove a friend home, slept for 3 hours and went back to the con with  my wife and youngest kid, saw GRR Martin and few other celebrities and watched a few panels.

Now sleep. ...Then to work at morning.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 12, 2017, 01:05:41 pm
Worldcon. Did a show on weapons and injuries, drove a friend home, slept for 3 hours and went back to the con with  my wife and youngest kid, saw GRR Martin and few other celebrities and watched a few panels.

Now sleep. ...Then to work at morning.

Speaking of, please punch GRRM in the throat for killing off Oberyn. Thank you.

Sincerely,
The planet
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 12, 2017, 03:29:53 pm


Oh, it's not dead. Rather, this forum has always been rather low on my list of priorities.

You say on your billionth sock puppet account.

I asked you a direct question, rules say you have to answer it.

The rules also say "don't be a dick" (the admin's words, not mine). And I'd say unfounded accusations of ban-dodging are a pretty clear violation.

But to answer your question, Murdin hasn't proven me wrong. Credit where it's due, (s)he made a pretty good showing, but I haven't been disproven.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 13, 2017, 02:14:26 am
a) I did not and am not going to punch GRRM. Writers have the right to kill well liked characters and I respect them for doing so because it adds a sense of risk that heroes rarely have in media.

b) Lana, that's not really an answer. You continue to ignore evidence that does not support your views.

c) If anyone wants to talk about real controversies and ethical dilemmas then I've got one conserning Worldcon: There was supposed to be a LARP about people with Alzheimer but it was canceled after (non-Nordic) congoers found out about it and were enraged that someone had even allowed it to pass the preliminary checks. The issue here is that the US-enragement culture meets Nordic LARP where even painful subjects may be discussed. Basically, people assumed that the LARP would about making fun of Alzheimer patients when no such intent had been meant. https://fransmayra.fi/2017/08/12/larp-art-not-worthy/

What do you think? Should LARP (and other forms of art) be allowed to involve serious matters?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on August 13, 2017, 02:19:09 am
I am getting increasingly convinced that Lana is just Paragon on a new account. Her tactics, writing style, tenacity and sheer incompetence are identical.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 13, 2017, 09:58:26 am
Regarding the LARP thingy, debate/flaming on the Worldcon Facebook page has been building up all day and it looks like it is becoming a hot topic with people on both sides getting way too heated.

EDIT:

Summary: Some people claim that the LARP had a bad summary explanation that made it seem like it was about making fun of Alzheimers. Some people see this as a claim that LARP isn't suitable for serious and sad themes and are defending LARP. Some people blame Worldcon organizers for being too quick to ban the game. Some people complain about "snowflakes" shutting down things that they oppose.

BTW: Earlier in the con there was an AIDS themed LARP. About kids dying in AIDS epidemic. No one complained about that one.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 13, 2017, 10:52:03 am
b) Lana, that's not really an answer. You continue to ignore evidence that does not support your views.

What evidence? Seriously, what evidence? Even Murdin, for all his/her criticisms, didn't actually disprove any of Damore's statements, and even acknowledged that he was right about a lot of things.

On the other hand, there is a large body of work to demonstrate that yes, plenty of gender differences are at least partly biological.

I already mentioned that male and female brains are structured differently. Women, on average, have thicker corticies, while men generally have higher brain volumes in many key regions, including the hippocampus and striatum. Volumes and cortical thickness also vary more among men than they do among women. This lines up with previous work looking at sex and IQ tests (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x), which demonstrate that while men and women have near-identical mean IQs, women's IQ scores tend to be more clustered around the mean, while men's tend to have a more varied distribution. This means that while men in general aren't smarter or dumber than women, you're more likely to encounter a very smart or very dumb man than you would a very smart or very dumb woman.

These differences appear to be based on gender identity, not on biological sex, as studies of the brains of transgender people (http://transascity.org/the-transgender-brain/) indicate that transwomen's brains are more similar to those of women than of men, and vice versa. However, there is the caveat that these studies have small sample sizes, so more research is needed. There are also other studies that cast doubt on this idea, but there are also compelling reasons to take many of those studies with a grain of salt. As is the case with many transgender topics, more research is needed.

And it's not just studies of brains that point in this direction. Studies of sex hormones (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222297/) indicate that they play a role in behavioral and cognitive differences between men and women. Studies also indicate that gender differences in human children can also be found in other (https://animalwise.org/2012/01/26/born-this-way-gender-based-toy-preferences-in-primates/) primate (http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/05/12/chimpanzees-why-boys-and-girls-different-behavior/) juveniles (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0099099) (though they may be at least partly social in some cases).

I'm perfectly willing to review any evidence against this. The scientific establishment has been wrong before (cholera, continental drift, etc.) So rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on August 13, 2017, 03:09:17 pm
Well you destroyed that strawman completely, but slight problem: NO ONE SAID THAT THEIR ARE NO BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MAN AND WOMEN.

What we are arguing is that Sexist McSexistface took the genuine science and vastly exaggerated it to justify misogynist, racist, and all around douchey political views.  That he did so is what Murdin and Askold were arguing and for my money proved.  He said that women are biologically worse software engineers then men, which no science whatsoever supports.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 13, 2017, 03:49:19 pm
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 13, 2017, 04:04:20 pm
Something tells me he was NOT told how to Dougie.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 13, 2017, 05:55:31 pm
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?

I have. I've also read a rebuttal to her article:

https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/ (https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/)

Have you?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 13, 2017, 06:45:34 pm
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?

I have. I've also read a rebuttal to her article:

https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/ (https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/)

Have you?

I also pissed in an old woman's sauce pan when I was a child.

Have you?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 13, 2017, 07:42:31 pm
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?

I have. I've also read a rebuttal to her article:

https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/ (https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/)

Have you?

I also pissed in an old woman's sauce pan when I was a child.

Have you?

No, but now I have a quote for my sig. Thank you!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on August 13, 2017, 07:55:22 pm
Its generally considered polite to ask before sig-quoting something.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 13, 2017, 08:11:18 pm
On the one hand, my typical opinion on Lana is best summed up by the phrase "pseudo-intellectual small dog syndrome that can go f itself." But I also don't believe in intellectual property. So go ahead. That makes like five sigs I am in.

Also, FWIW, I appropriated that story from Jean-Jacques Rosseau's Confessions.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Murdin on August 13, 2017, 09:57:10 pm
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?

I have. I've also read a rebuttal to her article:

https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/ (https://nintil.com/2017/08/10/contra-sadedin-varinsky-the-google-memo-is-still-right-again/)

Have you?

This was a very interesting article, thanks. It certainly opened my eyes on a few issues with my reason-ing.

Do you have anything to add to it, or do you stand by its words?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on August 13, 2017, 11:10:10 pm
On the one hand, my typical opinion on Lana is best summed up by the phrase "pseudo-intellectual small dog syndrome that can go f itself." But I also don't believe in intellectual property. So go ahead. That makes like five sigs I am in.

Also, FWIW, I appropriated that story from Jean-Jacques Rosseau's Confessions.

Queen, you're just on a roll today providing good potential sig-quotes - could not agree with you more about Lana right now. "pseudo-intellectual small dog syndrome that can go f itself".
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 14, 2017, 02:09:53 am
The rebuttal to rebuttal dismisses some of her points with little more than an emote when it can't defend the original text, focuses on nitpicking little details while using similarly dubious statements to make their own points.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 14, 2017, 11:24:39 pm
The rebuttal to rebuttal dismisses some of her points with little more than an emote when it can't defend the original text, focuses on nitpicking little details while using similarly dubious statements to make their own points.

Then why not take that up with the article's author? They have a comments section.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 15, 2017, 12:09:50 am
...Because YOU linked it here as an answer to the question I made.

If you're gonna use gish gallop as your debate style at the very leaat expect others to look at the sources you provide.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 15, 2017, 06:23:56 am
The rebuttal to rebuttal dismisses some of her points with little more than an emote when it can't defend the original text, focuses on nitpicking little details while using similarly dubious statements to make their own points.

Then why not take that up with the article's author? They have a comments section.

Yeah, why focus criticisms of the piece at the person presenting and relying on that piece?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Murdin on August 15, 2017, 06:27:00 am
Then why not take that up with the article's author? They have a comments section.

This is a tad disingenuous. If you bring a new element to the table, then you should be ready to defend it yourself. Maybe the author made a few missteps in his reasoning, but he's not part of the discussion. You are. He has already put a lot more thought and effort into promoting your position than you yourself did ; defending your own use of his statements is the least you can do.

So, once again, direct question: do you agree with the article or not? Is there anything you would like to add to, or remove from it?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 15, 2017, 05:54:10 pm
...Because YOU linked it here as an answer to the question I made.

If you're gonna use gish gallop as your debate style at the very leaat expect others to look at the sources you provide.

I just think the person who wrote the article would do a better job of defending it than me, if only because he or she is the author.

Then why not take that up with the article's author? They have a comments section.

This is a tad disingenuous. If you bring a new element to the table, then you should be ready to defend it yourself. Maybe the author made a few missteps in his reasoning, but he's not part of the discussion. You are. He has already put a lot more thought and effort into promoting your position than you yourself did ; defending your own use of his statements is the least you can do.

So, once again, direct question: do you agree with the article or not? Is there anything you would like to add to, or remove from it?

There are a few things I'd have liked for it to cover in more depth, but overall, I think I agree with it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on August 15, 2017, 07:47:52 pm
YOU are the one we're debating against. YOU are the one who brought it up. It is YOUR job to defend your side of the argument. The author of that piece isn't here. YOU are.




Now, stop being a disingenuous fuck, and defend. your. argument.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on August 15, 2017, 08:07:33 pm
...Because YOU linked it here as an answer to the question I made.

If you're gonna use gish gallop as your debate style at the very leaat expect others to look at the sources you provide.

I just think the person who wrote the article would do a better job of defending it than me, if only because he or she is the author.

Well, DUH! But you presented it here as evidence that should lead to your ultimate conclusion. Therefore, if someone undermines the evidence, as Murdin has, then your conclusion is not logically sound.* Therefore, it is your job to either (1) admit the source was flawed and provide additional reasoning for your conclusion or (2) re-establish that source so your conclusion is logically sound. Telling someone to argue on the link's chat is disingenuous as you are not making the argument, you do not know what argument the discussion itself is making, and the prevalence of alt-right trolls that will inevitably show up on anything dealing with sexism and pseudo-science.

*While keeping in mind that not being logically sound does not necessarily mean that it is wrong. For example, the sky is blue because Damore is a dick. The sky is in fact blue, but the conclusion rests on a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on August 15, 2017, 08:26:39 pm
what are the unspecified things you want dealt with in more depth?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 16, 2017, 12:43:19 am
Direct question to Lana: Why aren't you taking part in this debate?

You send links to long texts written by other people and claim that as evidence that you are correct. But you do not articulate any arguments of your own. You claim that articles we have provided aren't quite up to your standards but refuse to explain which parts you agree or disagree with. The most hypocritical part still is not that after I explained which parts of the counter-counter-argument of yours I can see to be bad you told me to argue with them -usually that in itself would be the laziest way to deal with a debate- instead what I have the biggest beef with you is that you refuse to say if you agree or disagree with that particular text...

Because you show the link and claim victory over the one I had, but then refuse to admit what parts, if any, you agree with and by doing so you can later backpedal. You refuse to take a stance.

In fact, here's another direct question: What do you think about the topic of this thread? You never said who you agree if any of the people who sue or plan to sue Google.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on August 16, 2017, 10:10:42 am
Man, I'm glad I got that peach brandy when I did...
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Murdin on August 16, 2017, 10:02:08 pm
(click to show/hide)


Askold already pointed out how the article resorts to lowbrow nitpicking to make its lame points. That's certainly true, but it won't be the focus of my criticism. There's worse, so much worse than that to be found in this Gish gallop, and this time our buddy will NOT be able to hide behind weak as shit reservations such as "there are a few things I'd have liked for it to cover in more depth, but overall, I think I agree with it". I wasn't lying when I said it was a very interesting read. There's a lot to learn here about the so-called "rationalist" mindset, and how it can become so utterly detached from the scientific enterprise.

And what better way to introduce this assassination of science, than with this audacious dismissal of the idea that correlations made by people the author agree with do not imply causation?

Quote
This is a case of what Garett Jones calls the Everest regression. He says that controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure there is not low. Or as I say, controlling for latitude, the Sahara desert has good weather.

The error here is that HDI and gender equality are substantially linked. Controlling for HDI or GDP is like controlling for gender equality. As a general case, all good things are correlated: technology, moral progress, GDP, country IQ, industrialisation tend to be coupled. We don’t need power to explain those differences.

Okay, let's follow his reasoning through. After controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure at the summit of the Everest is normal. This is obviously because altitude is the only factor (it actually isn't but w/e) that affects pressure at this position on the surface of Earth ; there's no need for an alternate explanation. Therefore, if after controlling for HDI the gender differences are normal for any set of gender-equality factors, it means... OH SH-

This would also be a questionable cause fallacy, of course. The entire point of Dr. Sadedin was to give an alternative interpretation of the same results (high HDI causes men to act more stereotypically masculine) that makes at least as much sense as the one this study was clearly designed around (gender equality causes people to act more stereotypically gendered), just to show that you can't easily conclude any causation from a mess of correlations that are also correlated with each other. The same mess of correlation that the blog's author actually mention while completely ignoring its actual implications. Science is fucking hard, guys.

The concept behind the "Everest regression" itself is a massive fallacy. Its implication that controlling for known external factors is fallacious is... beyond insane. You can't even argue that it denounces somehow "abusive" or "illegitimate" forms of control, either, because its textbook case IS logically sound and scientifically meaningful. We can evaluate the correlation between pressure and height (and maybe also temperature...) from other measurements. If the pressure at Mt Everest is NOT normal controlling for height, then there has to be an additional factor to explain this discrepancy.

Jones is an associate professor in economics at the Koch-funded George Mason University. From what I can guess, he invented his fallacy in order to defend IQ as some essential measurement of man, against trained psychologists who mostly see it as a tool which nicely correlates with many factors of social success. I'll let you make your own opinion of the man, his works, and whether his layman's stances on natural sciences are worth your consideration. Besides Googling his name, his Twitter is a good source of information ; Here's a reblog demonstrating his vision on what makes good science. (https://twitter.com/economistified/status/895709406364483585)

Incidentally, cursory knowledge of world geography would tell you the Sahara's weather is, in fact, particularly inhospitable even when accounting for latitude. Unless you define "good weather" as "sunny", in which case the Sahara has excellent weather regardless of latitude.

Quote
The paper says that initially, mental rotation differences were moderaly large, d=.59, for men primed male and women rimed female. (p=0.01).  For men and women both primed male, the effect was d=0.01. But what is the p-value or that? Well, p=0.94. Yes, 19 times larger than the standard 0.05 cutoff commonly accepted for statistical significance. For the whole set they report statistical significant results, but no effect size. We can also study statistical significance in the extreme case: female primed men and male primed women. If we plug in their data in a Welch’s t-test calculator, we get a p-value of 0.61. Again, not statistically significant.

(click to show/hide)

Like David Silverman in his interview by Bill O'Reilly, I... genuinely can't explain what I have in front of me. This is faux-scientific fetishism of the dumbest fucking kind, the end result of years of smug rationalist cargo cult enabled by the likes of Scott Alexander. That man's understanding of p-values is apparently limited to "low good, high bad".

The difference in test results between men and women both primed male is tiny. This results in a very high p-value. A valid interpretation of this p-value is that this kind of result would be very likely to be found if there was no difference between the two studied groups with regard to the studied characteristic. Or, to use a handy "Everest regression": when controlling for male priming, there's no observed difference in tests results between men and women. This tends to corroborate Dr. Sadedin's hypothesis that gender priming, not biological sex, is to blame for the widely measured disparity between men and women on spatial reasoning skills.

Meanwhile, I'm calculating a p-value around 0.014 for women primed female vs women primed male. I can't get the exact value without the group sizes, but my other calculations fit quite well with the blog author's numbers. In any case, that's actually quite significant. Obviously, this is also good for Dr. Sadedin's claim that gendered priming has an influence on test results.

I'm aware this study cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. In fact, I'm almost certain more data will come out or already exist, that directly contradicts these results. It doesn't matter. Even if the scores behind this study were found to be completely forged, it does not excuse or justify the blog author's hatchet job in any way whatsoever.

Quote
There is a significant overlap, yes. But if we look at the tails (https://econjwatch.org/articles/what-is-the-right-number-of-women-hints-and-puzzles-from-cognitive-ability-research), as I’ve been stressing over and over, one can still see massive differences.

The defilement of science is less eye-gouging than in the two previous exhibits, but there's a lot of different wrongs in this single point.
From a more personal perspective, as a software engineer myself, I'm highly skeptical of the underlying claim that doing my job competently actually requires such extraordinary mental prowess.

As for the rest of the article past this point... it becomes pretty boring, to be quite honest. The author keeps talking past Dr. Sadedin's points, often rephrasing what she just said in a marginally more favorable way and then calling it a win. For a while, he just quotes relevant studies from actual scientists, wisely abstaining himself from adding his own commentary or conclusions. Then both the original response and the blog post drift into politics and I can finally be excused for not giving a shit. There isn't much to say about the author's self-congratulating conclusion, either.


(click to show/hide)


Obviously not a direct question this time, buddy, but... why do you hate science so much? Why do you keep using it as a blunt weapon against your rhetorical opponents, without showing any respect to its most fundamental principles? Why do you spew self-righteous bullshit like "I guess science is sexist now" or "rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically", only to effectively disown it by including such enormities in your narrative?

I mean... is it really worth it? What are you even trying to achieve here, and I actually do mean, here? You've already claimed Religion and Philosophy, Politics and Government, Society and History, was that not enough for you? Did you really have to bring your usual drivel to Science&Tech, incidentally the only place where I would give a fuck about it in in the first place, and then gloat openly over Queen taking the bait? And then take a blatant bait yourself, deliberately or not? Did you think you were the only one "clever" enough for that kind of dirty trick, or did you just decide to go along with the ride?

Because, unless making people exhaust themselves was somehow actually part of your goal, I'm pretty sure you haven't achieved anything here.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Eiki-mun on August 16, 2017, 10:56:32 pm
Correction: Religion and Philosophy is being reclaimed by people from FSTDT who talk about the Christian News Network. It's actually kinda fun to watch them.

Other than that, very well written post, Murdin.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 12:17:44 am
You know what? Fine, I admit it. I felt like I was getting dogpiled, and I wanted to redirect some heat away from me.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on August 17, 2017, 12:30:38 am
You mean you debated on the side of an argument that most people here disagree with, and those same people all criticized your position, asked you to debate in good faith, and called you on your shit when you didn't? Shock! Horror!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 17, 2017, 12:49:33 am
You mean you debated on the side of an argument that most people here disagree with, and those same people all criticized your position, asked you to debate in good faith, and called you on your shit when you didn't? Shock! Horror!

Okay, how did I not debate in good faith?

And that "criticism" of my position? I'll admit that Murdin is actually using science, and Askold actually criticized the memo itself, but the others were ridiculous. Between Cloud trying to debunk an article by attacking its authors and the website that hosted it, Queen snarking about alleged sexism, and niam Godwinning all over the place, their "criticism" is hardly worth even acknowledging. What I want is a scientific discussion. If I wanted to discuss politics, I'd have put this on the political board.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 17, 2017, 08:21:16 am
Lana, what do you think of the original manifesto? What do you think of the stuff that you linked? Do you agree with them?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Sigmaleph on August 17, 2017, 09:31:48 pm
Quote
Of course, as Grey Tribe faiths usually involve a transcendental impersonal absolute, there's also a strong messianic current either way. As a capitalist hero, enemy of political correctness, denouncer of leftist lies and destroyer of public institutions, the current POTUS is currently the clear ecumenical pretender to this title, though opinions are still divided over his actual status.

Most of your criticisms are at least arguably correct but this one is really odd. I have not met a single rationalist/grey triber/whatever you want to call 'em that likes Trump. I'm sure some exist, but it's not at all a general trait of the subculture.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Murdin on August 18, 2017, 10:12:35 am
Most of your criticisms are at least arguably correct but this one is really odd. I have not met a single rationalist/grey triber/whatever you want to call 'em that likes Trump. I'm sure some exist, but it's not at all a general trait of the subculture.

I'm not really interested in defending this rant, it was more about venting my frustrations than accurately describing anyone who identifies as rationalist or libertarian. There's a reason I wrapped it in a spoiler with a deprecating title. (EDIT: IOW, it's intended to be just as caricatural as the SJW and fundie stereotypes are for the "blue and red tribes")

I think we have conflicting definitions of the "Grey Tribe", and that's where our disagreement mostly comes from. Scott Alexander's portrayal of his chosen tribe seems to be mostly built around himself, as he constantly tries to defend its greater whole. Not sure if he is being dishonest or simply delusional about it, but in any case, the actual political "third way" that has been gaining traction among "millennials" is generally far less compassionate, conscientious or left-friendly than his idealized picture.

Alexander's actual stated positions make him, at most, bluish-grey ; his demographic surveys tend to betray the kind of people he actually appeals to. Most people who fit into the neither-SJW-nor-fundie reals-not-feels no-bullshit-skeptic mold would dismiss him as a liberal cuck poseur or something along those lines. Personalities like Carl Benjamin are much more representative of their socio-political angle ; while "Sargon" isn't very big on futurism himself, he does love to portray his stance as the triumph of hard cold science and reason over decadent politicking.

Also, I did say that Trump was a source of divisions among them. A lot of rationalist-types see him as a necessary evil of sorts, however, and are ready to jump to his defense whenever one of his actions can be justified as not-entirely-destructive. Nobody said the Messiah had to be nice after all. If it takes someone like him to overthrow the Blue Tribe with its "political correctness" and unite sensible moderates against extremists on "both" sides, well...

If you actually wish to continue that discussion, then we should probably move to F&B. I really want to be done with serious political discussions in these forums.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on August 27, 2017, 11:22:45 pm
Direct question to Lana: Why aren't you taking part in this debate?

You send links to long texts written by other people and claim that as evidence that you are correct. But you do not articulate any arguments of your own. You claim that articles we have provided aren't quite up to your standards but refuse to explain which parts you agree or disagree with. The most hypocritical part still is not that after I explained which parts of the counter-counter-argument of yours I can see to be bad you told me to argue with them -usually that in itself would be the laziest way to deal with a debate- instead what I have the biggest beef with you is that you refuse to say if you agree or disagree with that particular text...

Because you show the link and claim victory over the one I had, but then refuse to admit what parts, if any, you agree with and by doing so you can later backpedal. You refuse to take a stance.

In fact, here's another direct question: What do you think about the topic of this thread? You never said who you agree if any of the people who sue or plan to sue Google.

Lana, what do you think of the original manifesto? What do you think of the stuff that you linked? Do you agree with them?

Well, I'm not as sure about it as I was, but I'm not going to reject it. As for the lawsuits, I'm going to wait and see for now.

As for why I haven't played that active a role in a debate, it's because I felt like I get personally attacked every time I post a contentious opinion. I was trying to redirect the ire away from me. Maybe it's cowardly, but I hope it's at least understandable.

And I have a direct question for you: why aren't you enforcing the "don't be a dick" rule? Because it seems like far too many people are violating it with nary a comment from you.

Now, I'd like to take a moment to address Murdin. Let me start by saying that you're grounding your criticisms in science, rather than ad hominems or irrelevant divergences. That puts you head and shoulders above a lot of people on the Internet. I can admit that your criticisms of my link have some merit. Which brings me to my next point: you hit on something regarding my motives. After Queen's response redirected the discussion to talking about Damore's memo, I was hoping for a scientific discussion about the memo itself. So the personal attacks threw me off balance, and led me to think of the debate as something more competitive, something I wanted to "win". Under a more dispassionate mindset, I think I would've been able to recognize the rebuttal's faults. Problem is, I overlooked them. I wasn't using it as a discussion piece, but as ammunition. You're a perceptive individual who helped me to recognize that I was letting my pride get the better of me, and I respect that.

That being said, however, there are some claims you made that I can't help but criticize. You say I wasn't interested in constructive discourse. In reality, I posted this with the original intent of constructive discourse. Yes, I slipped into a more "I need to win this" mindset, but that came later. While that's not an excuse, and I do need to take steps to avoid that in the future, I'm generally not focused on being "right". I also don't hate science; while I can admit that I wasn't as impartial as I should've been during this discussion, my intent wasn't originally to use it as a weapon, but to steer the discussion into a more scientific venue. While I can admit that I was using it as a weapon later on, if only subconsciously, that's not my usual modus operandi. To address the bit about Queen, I wasn't trying to bait or goad her, I just thought she was digging her own grave with unsubstantiated ad homs. And "taking over?" My "usual drivel?" I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I haven't even been all that active on these forums. And in any case, nobody forced you to respond to this, so I really don't see how posting it here was some kind of wrong against you. All I wanted to do was talk about the legal difficulties a major tech company was going through, and it seemed like the thread fit here the best.

Please don't take this as some kind of attack on you. Really, I appreciate your criticism. I'm just offering some in return. I completely understand your frustration, even if it seems a little overblown to me, and I'd like to come to some kind of understanding.

Anyway, thanks for putting me back on track. It's time I focused more on an impartial effort to determine the accuracy of Damore's claims. Do you want to post the criticisms to the blog, or should I?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on August 31, 2017, 02:13:06 pm
I admit that people here have made a lot of personal attacks against you. Mainly because a lot of them are by now convinced that you are the same old shitposter who posts shit in similar ways even after getting banned.

But the thing about you getting ganged up on when you take a stance... It's more that since this forum, despite what people have occasionally claimed, is not a echochamber or a circlejerk and we can disagree. And when someone comes in with a stance that happens to be the opposite of what the majority of posters (or at least the majority of the most active posters) have they get opposed.

There is nothing wong with debating or even playing the devil's advocate but the purpose of debate, in my opinion at least, is not to "win" it is to get the answer that is closest to the truth out of all ideas that are presented. ...Well, at least in theory. In practise it is not certain that the debaters have all the correct data.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 01, 2017, 08:10:46 pm
I admit that people here have made a lot of personal attacks against you. Mainly because a lot of them are by now convinced that you are the same old shitposter who posts shit in similar ways even after getting banned.

But the thing about you getting ganged up on when you take a stance... It's more that since this forum, despite what people have occasionally claimed, is not a echochamber or a circlejerk and we can disagree. And when someone comes in with a stance that happens to be the opposite of what the majority of posters (or at least the majority of the most active posters) have they get opposed.

There is nothing wong with debating or even playing the devil's advocate but the purpose of debate, in my opinion at least, is not to "win" it is to get the answer that is closest to the truth out of all ideas that are presented. ...Well, at least in theory. In practise it is not certain that the debaters have all the correct data.

I was expecting disagreement. What I wasn't expecting was the rude, nasty vitriol. And it wasn't just me, either. Remember what happened when Radiation admitted she voted for Trump? Remember niam openly bullying her?

Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

In fact, I have another direct question: where the hell were you when this was going on? Why didn't you intervene?

Honestly, I think some people on this board have serious trouble dealing with people who have viewpoints they disagree with. When they encounter one being expressed, their reactions can be grouped into one of three categories: mockery, rage, and condescension. Oh, and let's not forget that they try to discredit with accusations. Accusations of trolling, accusations of lack of good faith, accusations of political extremism, anything will do. If I'm going to be candid, I suspect that at least some of them don't actually think I'm this guy you've had to deal with. They just want an excuse to attack me. Have things always been this toxic?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on September 02, 2017, 12:57:38 am
Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

In fact, I have another direct question: where the hell were you when this was going on? Why didn't you intervene?

Honestly, I think some people on this board have serious trouble dealing with people who have viewpoints they disagree with. When they encounter one being expressed, their reactions can be grouped into one of three categories: mockery, rage, and condescension. Oh, and let's not forget that they try to discredit with accusations. Accusations of trolling, accusations of lack of good faith, accusations of political extremism, anything will do. If I'm going to be candid, I suspect that at least some of them don't actually think I'm this guy you've had to deal with. They just want an excuse to attack me. Have things always been this toxic?
[/quote]

I love how you think that pointing out things Radiation did and admitted to are bullying. The alt-right ARE Nazis. No matter what weasel words they use, no matter what they protest to the opposite. They believe in the tenets of white supremacism and white nationalism, and I see no fault in calling them political extremists and trolls, because they ARE these things.

They troll more or less just to try and incite misery in those they disagree with.

I will never be nice to a Nazi and "respect his / her different views".

Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 02, 2017, 01:33:50 am
Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

In fact, I have another direct question: where the hell were you when this was going on? Why didn't you intervene?

Honestly, I think some people on this board have serious trouble dealing with people who have viewpoints they disagree with. When they encounter one being expressed, their reactions can be grouped into one of three categories: mockery, rage, and condescension. Oh, and let's not forget that they try to discredit with accusations. Accusations of trolling, accusations of lack of good faith, accusations of political extremism, anything will do. If I'm going to be candid, I suspect that at least some of them don't actually think I'm this guy you've had to deal with. They just want an excuse to attack me. Have things always been this toxic?

I love how you think that pointing out things Radiation did and admitted to are bullying. The alt-right ARE Nazis. No matter what weasel words they use, no matter what they protest to the opposite. They believe in the tenets of white supremacism and white nationalism, and I see no fault in calling them political extremists and trolls, because they ARE these things.

They troll more or less just to try and incite misery in those they disagree with.

I will never be nice to a Nazi and "respect his / her different views".

You know you posted that tirade after she admitted regretting it, right? All you did was kick her while she was down.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on September 02, 2017, 01:42:04 am
aaaargl flargl fix your quote blocks
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 02, 2017, 02:02:41 am
aaaargl flargl fix your quote blocks

Done.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: dpareja on September 02, 2017, 02:08:30 am
Radiation voted for this President, and the evidence for this sort of behavior was all over his campaign.

Radiation chose not to see it for what it was, because "brown people taking white people jobs".

So I'll say it again.

Radiation, you voted for this lunatic. You subscribed to alt-right viewpoints and helped to elect a madman consumed by his own ego. You made this bed for yourself, with all its urine stains. NOW SLEEP IN IT.

In fact, I have another direct question: where the hell were you when this was going on? Why didn't you intervene?

Honestly, I think some people on this board have serious trouble dealing with people who have viewpoints they disagree with. When they encounter one being expressed, their reactions can be grouped into one of three categories: mockery, rage, and condescension. Oh, and let's not forget that they try to discredit with accusations. Accusations of trolling, accusations of lack of good faith, accusations of political extremism, anything will do. If I'm going to be candid, I suspect that at least some of them don't actually think I'm this guy you've had to deal with. They just want an excuse to attack me. Have things always been this toxic?

I love how you think that pointing out things Radiation did and admitted to are bullying. The alt-right ARE Nazis. No matter what weasel words they use, no matter what they protest to the opposite. They believe in the tenets of white supremacism and white nationalism, and I see no fault in calling them political extremists and trolls, because they ARE these things.

They troll more or less just to try and incite misery in those they disagree with.

I will never be nice to a Nazi and "respect his / her different views".

You know you posted that tirade after she admitted regretting it, right? All you did was kick her while she was down.

This is niam we're talking about. If he sees someone down, he kicks her. If one of her arms is broken, he breaks the other. If she's fallen into a hole, he starts shoveling dirt over her...
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on September 02, 2017, 02:15:33 am
Except maybe for Niam, nobody was bullying Radiation.  She said she voted for Trump, we asked why, she said a bunch of things that weren't true and/or made no sense, we pointed out it wasn't true and she started complaining we were ganging up on her.

If someone says the earth is flat, and ten other people point out it's not, they are not bullying.

Now for a mob to start harassing them, doxxing them, threatening to rape or kill them, that would be bullying.  Paragon of course refused to acknowledge this which is why we dislike him so much.  Your opinions, style of posting, a lot of the expressions you use etc are very similar to his.  But I will admit I could be wrong and have misjudged you.  So at risk of starting that goddamn mess up again I'll flat out ask you:  do you think what happened to Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn was bullying?
 
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 02, 2017, 08:49:09 am
I mean, she did pretty much say that Mexicans were takin our jerbs.  Yes, because the work that illegal immigrants do isn't shitwork for slave wages that our citizens deem beneath them.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Art Vandelay on September 02, 2017, 09:44:03 am
I mean, she did pretty much say that Mexicans were takin our jerbs.  Yes, because the work that illegal immigrants do isn't shitwork for slave wages that our citizens deem beneath them.
Well, it's more because legal workers oh-so unreasonably want at least minimum wage and halfway acceptable hours, benefits and safety. Oh, those fat, lazy, entitled American slobs, not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, am I right? What next? Socialism? Of course, rich people would rather keep as much money for themselves, so they're more than happy to hire illegals instead for a relative pittance. Add in the government actively encouraging this and at this point barely even trying to deny it, and a depressing number of Americans vehemently defending this practice because racism or something and, well, really it's just one of many ways folks at the lower end of society are being fucked with nary a bit of spit for lube.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on September 02, 2017, 11:23:33 am
Oh, I know.  I'd much prefer that corporations are forced to document all workers and pay them at least minimum wage under threat of being denied the ability to operate legally.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 02, 2017, 11:31:21 am
Except maybe for Niam, nobody was bullying Radiation.  She said she voted for Trump, we asked why, she said a bunch of things that weren't true and/or made no sense, we pointed out it wasn't true and she started complaining we were ganging up on her.

If someone says the earth is flat, and ten other people point out it's not, they are not bullying.

Now for a mob to start harassing them, doxxing them, threatening to rape or kill them, that would be bullying.  Paragon of course refused to acknowledge this which is why we dislike him so much.  Your opinions, style of posting, a lot of the expressions you use etc are very similar to his.  But I will admit I could be wrong and have misjudged you.  So at risk of starting that goddamn mess up again I'll flat out ask you:  do you think what happened to Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn was bullying?

Okay, taking a look at what happened and... yeah, I have to admit I remembered it being worse than it actually was. As for Anita, while I disagree with a lot of what she has to say, I condemn any harassment she had to deal with. I don't know much about Zoe, other than that she apparently made an overrated game, but the same goes for her.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 11, 2017, 07:39:47 am
I don't know much about Zoe, other than that she apparently made an overrated game, but the same goes for her.
I am in awe of someone who chases drama on the internet as much as you seem to and you doesn't know the skinny about Gamergate.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg)

This is my totally not skeptical face!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on September 11, 2017, 09:01:11 am
Consider how tactically Lana chose to badmouth Quinn despite most of the news about her being how she has been harassed.

If I said that all I know about Obama is that he may or may not be secretly a Kenyan would you consider that likely to be the only bit I have learned about him?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 11, 2017, 10:44:34 am
I don't know much about Zoe, other than that she apparently made an overrated game, but the same goes for her.
I am in awe of someone who chases drama on the internet as much as you seem to and you doesn't know the skinny about Gamergate.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg)

This is my totally not skeptical face!

It's more that I can't bring myself to care. There are far more interesting and impactful things to worry about, even by the standards of internet drama. As far as I'm concerned, it's just another case of inconsequential bullshit getting overblown by the media.

Consider how tactically Lana chose to badmouth Quinn despite most of the news about her being how she has been harassed.

If I said that all I know about Obama is that he may or may not be secretly a Kenyan would you consider that likely to be the only bit I have learned about him?

Well, pardon me for not caring about an overhyped flame war. And honestly, it seems kind of hypocritical that you're so concerned about online harassment (that, AFAIK, hasn't resulted in any serious long-term consequences) when you don't show nearly as much concern about people getting physically assaulted by a certain faction of left-wing extremists.

Besides, what I said was a judgment of her game, not her. There's a difference between saying "Avatar is overrated" and saying "James Cameron is a prima donna".

Also, while I'm here, I'd like to talk about the Damore case and why it upsets me.

I'm willing to concede that Damore's memo may have been flawed. Maybe his data were faulty, maybe his conclusions were wrong, maybe his recommendations wouldn't work.

But you know what? That doesn't justify what's happened to him.

Nowhere in his memo did he claim that women were inferior to men, just different. He never said that we couldn't handle pressure, or that we shouldn't work in tech, or anything else you'd expect to find on RoK. All he said was that Google's approach was counterproductive and that there were better ways to accommodate female employees. And the media raked him over the coals for it.

You know what I saw precious little of during the media crusade against him? Scientific criticism. What I saw was, by and large, hysterical screaming about his alleged sexism. He didn't deserve the hitpieces against him, and he certainly didn't deserve to be fired. I'm definitely not against his memo being discussed from a scientific point of view, even negatively. However, I am against emotionally-based criticism of him. Because that's essentially what this amounts to.

Besides, aren't you afraid that this might have a chilling effect on scientific inquiry? If you can't question prevailing ideas without getting fired from your job, do you think people will be willing to challenge predominant theories?

And in any case, firing him didn't prove him wrong. It didn't change his mind. All it did was make him into a victim. Even if he was completely wrong, firing him was not the right course of action.

Let me tell you a story. When I was a teenager, I found a website claiming the moon landings were faked. I thought what they had to say was interesting, so I checked to see if there were rebuttals. There were, and I found them satisfactory. On the other hand, if anybody who questioned the moon landings ended up hit with a media smear campaign and fired from their job, all while hardly anybody gave actual scientific criticism of their ideas, I'd be a little suspicious. Wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on September 11, 2017, 01:16:34 pm
My point has always been that couple morons in the "left" are just a couple morons and focusing on them while making excused for Nazis is not "neutral" it is damn well choosing to side with Nazis.

Also that memo was an excuse to claim that women aren't on tech jobs and aren't getting paid equally because they are women and wired that way and that it's their own fault. Also there's the weird thought that anything promoting equality is left-wing. But that is a common belief in USA for some reason.

And there's a difference between disagreements online and sending death threats and rape threats. I for one have never threatened to rape and/or kill a person for disagreeing with me. Not a high standard but as many of the people who complain about Quinn and other noted women in gaming fail to meet even that.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 11, 2017, 04:02:10 pm
My point has always been that couple morons in the "left" are just a couple morons and focusing on them while making excused for Nazis is not "neutral" it is damn well choosing to side with Nazis.

It's more than just "a couple morons". These are large, angry mobs of violent extremists. What do you want me to do, ignore them?

And are you saying I'm making excuses for Nazis?

Also that memo was an excuse to claim that women aren't on tech jobs and aren't getting paid equally because they are women and wired that way and that it's their own fault. Also there's the weird thought that anything promoting equality is left-wing. But that is a common belief in USA for some reason.

If you want to criticize the memo, fine. But talk about the actual memo, not your strawman.

And there's a difference between disagreements online and sending death threats and rape threats. I for one have never threatened to rape and/or kill a person for disagreeing with me. Not a high standard but as many of the people who complain about Quinn and other noted women in gaming fail to meet even that.

Yes, that's awful, and I condemn it. They definitely don't deserve to go through that.

That being said, however, I fail to see how their cases are special. If you're prominent on the internet and even slightly controversial, you will get threats. Whether you give a bad review (http://www.indiewire.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-critic-receives-death-threats-129612/) or draw fanart SJWs consider "problematic" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/07/29/dream-daddy-fan-art-sparks-the-summers-dumbest-outrage/#4a52dbe720ee), they're almost inevitable.

Just so we're entirely clear, I'm not saying that death threats should be considered acceptable. I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned. What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe what Quinn and co. went through is unique. If you can show me how it is, I'm willing to listen.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 11, 2017, 05:34:50 pm
My point has always been that couple morons in the "left" are just a couple morons and focusing on them while making excused for Nazis is not "neutral" it is damn well choosing to side with Nazis.

It's more than just "a couple morons". These are large, angry mobs of violent extremists. What do you want me to do, ignore them?

Didn't you just say you ignored that whole Quinn drama?

Because there were no mobs of violent extremists involved in that one, no siree.

And there's a difference between disagreements online and sending death threats and rape threats. I for one have never threatened to rape and/or kill a person for disagreeing with me. Not a high standard but as many of the people who complain about Quinn and other noted women in gaming fail to meet even that.

Yes, that's awful, and I condemn it. They definitely don't deserve to go through that.

That being said, however, I fail to see how their cases are special. If you're prominent on the internet and even slightly controversial, you will get threats. Whether you give a bad review (http://www.indiewire.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-critic-receives-death-threats-129612/) or draw fanart SJWs consider "problematic" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/07/29/dream-daddy-fan-art-sparks-the-summers-dumbest-outrage/#4a52dbe720ee), they're almost inevitable.

Just so we're entirely clear, I'm not saying that death threats should be considered acceptable. I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned. What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe what Quinn and co. went through is unique. If you can show me how it is, I'm willing to listen.
Our fearless defender of civil virtue and law and order tells us because other people get rape and death threats too it's no biggie because that shit happens all the time. So do scuffles at protests, Lana.
Who the fuck said the biggest problem was it's "uniqueness" anyway? Is a rape threat only notable if it's done by a mime playing a kazoo?
Maybe the problem isn't that Quinn's experience was "special" but rather that it happened at all!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 11, 2017, 07:59:46 pm
My point has always been that couple morons in the "left" are just a couple morons and focusing on them while making excused for Nazis is not "neutral" it is damn well choosing to side with Nazis.

It's more than just "a couple morons". These are large, angry mobs of violent extremists. What do you want me to do, ignore them?

Didn't you just say you ignored that whole Quinn drama?

Because there were no mobs of violent extremists involved in that one, no siree.

Wait, there were? Did anybody get attacked? Not just yelled at over the internet, but attacked?


And there's a difference between disagreements online and sending death threats and rape threats. I for one have never threatened to rape and/or kill a person for disagreeing with me. Not a high standard but as many of the people who complain about Quinn and other noted women in gaming fail to meet even that.

Yes, that's awful, and I condemn it. They definitely don't deserve to go through that.

That being said, however, I fail to see how their cases are special. If you're prominent on the internet and even slightly controversial, you will get threats. Whether you give a bad review (http://www.indiewire.com/2012/07/dark-knight-rises-critic-receives-death-threats-129612/) or draw fanart SJWs consider "problematic" (https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/07/29/dream-daddy-fan-art-sparks-the-summers-dumbest-outrage/#4a52dbe720ee), they're almost inevitable.

Just so we're entirely clear, I'm not saying that death threats should be considered acceptable. I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned. What I am saying is that I have no reason to believe what Quinn and co. went through is unique. If you can show me how it is, I'm willing to listen.
Our fearless defender of civil virtue and law and order tells us because other people get rape and death threats too it's no biggie because that shit happens all the time. So do scuffles at protests, Lana.
Who the fuck said the biggest problem was it's "uniqueness" anyway? Is a rape threat only notable if it's done by a mime playing a kazoo?
Maybe the problem isn't that Quinn's experience was "special" but rather that it happened at all!

OK, do you have some kind of problem with reading comprehension? Because I literally just denied what you're claiming I said!

What part of my above statement said the threats she got were "no big deal"?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 11, 2017, 08:15:46 pm
Yeah Lana, if some anarchist sounds off promoting arson it's just words innit? No big whoop.

Why the hell.did you bring up the non unique status of Quinn's experience if not to diminish it? 'Shit happens on the internet" is literally pointless unless it's an excuse for bad behavior.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 11, 2017, 09:25:57 pm
Yeah Lana, if some anarchist sounds off promoting arson it's just words innit? No big whoop.

Why the hell.did you bring up the non unique status of Quinn's experience if not to diminish it? 'Shit happens on the internet" is literally pointless unless it's an excuse for bad behavior.

I'm not diminishing it, you're overblowing it. Honestly, I don't get why you're so fixated on it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 11, 2017, 10:53:04 pm
Dunno why you're so fixated on losing your mind over a tiny minority of lefties called antifa who get into scuffles at rallies or the suffering of a former google dudebro who got panned for their "nawt sexism, science bro" anti-science manifesto!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on September 12, 2017, 01:57:30 pm
Well, when all you have is a shovel....
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 15, 2017, 05:08:23 pm
Dunno why you're so fixated on losing your mind over a tiny minority of lefties called antifa who get into scuffles at rallies or the suffering of a former google dudebro who got panned for their "nawt sexism, science bro" anti-science manifesto!

They do worse than get into scuffles at rallies. They make unprovoked attacks on people simply because they were there. Or have you already forgotten about the cancelled Yiannpolous talk in Berkeley? Antifa are thugs LARPing as freedom fighters. Why shouldn't I be against them?

Also, I'd like you to explain why you think the memo is "sexist" and "anti-science", preferably with direct quotes from it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on September 15, 2017, 06:27:48 pm
So you're too stupid to actually realize why that "memo" should be an affront to your entire gender?

Ironbite-good to know.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 15, 2017, 10:49:58 pm
So you're too stupid to actually realize why that "memo" should be an affront to your entire gender?

Ironbite-good to know.

Wait a second. You're telling me that if I don't agree with your views on gender, I'm stupid?

Wow, you're really lacking in the self-awareness department.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on September 16, 2017, 03:21:27 pm
You're not helping your case of not being Ultimate Dragon/Dynamic Paragon you know.

Ironbite-but then again its about what I expect from you.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 16, 2017, 08:11:40 pm

They do worse than get into scuffles at rallies. They make unprovoked attacks on people simply because they were there. Or have you already forgotten about the cancelled Yiannpolous talk in Berkeley? Antifa are thugs LARPing as freedom fighters. Why shouldn't I be against them?

Also, I'd like you to explain why you think the memo is "sexist" and "anti-science", preferably with direct quotes from it.
Because fishing for and cherry picking data to support your conclusion is precisely the opposite of science. When you start with this statement.

Quote
"When it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence." (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/)

And then thrash around looking for anything to back it up you're doing political advocacy, not science. It's the opposite of science. The scientific method gathers evidence, develops a hypothesis based on said evidence and only then starts talking about a theory. The google manifesto started with butthurt, tried to bolster the butthurt with bullet points of cherry picked statistics and then declared butthurt to be so, that's the fucking precise opposite of science.

(https://68.media.tumblr.com/aac6d0fa93df4c1b485c9ecc5ade1bc7/tumblr_ol65nt5O9O1ruru4oo1_500.jpg)

Google guy is pretending to be the guy on the left when in fact he's the guy on the right, start with a contentious conclusion and bolster it with a bunch of sciency words is not fucking science!

And I still can't muster any sympathy for those who wear a swastika, or a MAGA hat for that matter. Both stand for the politics of white racial supremacy but I guess, sure - you shouldn't launch uprovoked attacks on racist fuckholes not because it makes you look bad but because unprovoked attacks bad m'kay? Not gonna lose any sleep when it happens though.

Bottom line, ANTIFA's stated historical reason for existence, that you can't rely on the state to stop Nazis, was bourne out in Berkely, where the cops disarmed Antifa but not the right wing  thugs LARPing as freedom fighters (http://archive.is/JYBKt#selection-1055.0-1055.10) and in Charlottsville, where Heather Heyer was killed and that African American fella was thumped with poles by Nazis mere yards a police station, the cops just sorta hung back. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/could-the-police-have-prevented-bloodshed-in-charlottesville/536775/)

If the cops cannot be bothered defending a synagogue (https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-refused-to-protect-charlottesville-synagogue-during-far-right-march/) from crowds yelling "jews will not replace us" then the good police officers of Charlottsville are essentially advertising for Antifa. You don't want an out of control anti far right counterinsurgency? Get your fucking police to do their damn jobs!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 19, 2017, 09:01:29 pm

They do worse than get into scuffles at rallies. They make unprovoked attacks on people simply because they were there. Or have you already forgotten about the cancelled Yiannpolous talk in Berkeley? Antifa are thugs LARPing as freedom fighters. Why shouldn't I be against them?

Also, I'd like you to explain why you think the memo is "sexist" and "anti-science", preferably with direct quotes from it.
Because fishing for and cherry picking data to support your conclusion is precisely the opposite of science. When you start with this statement.

Quote
"When it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence." (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/)

And then thrash around looking for anything to back it up you're doing political advocacy, not science. It's the opposite of science. The scientific method gathers evidence, develops a hypothesis based on said evidence and only then starts talking about a theory. The google manifesto started with butthurt, tried to bolster the butthurt with bullet points of cherry picked statistics and then declared butthurt to be so, that's the fucking precise opposite of science.

(https://68.media.tumblr.com/aac6d0fa93df4c1b485c9ecc5ade1bc7/tumblr_ol65nt5O9O1ruru4oo1_500.jpg)

Google guy is pretending to be the guy on the left when in fact he's the guy on the right, start with a contentious conclusion and bolster it with a bunch of sciency words is not fucking science!

Okay, first thing's first, that's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? Because like I said earlier, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And I'll be looking at it, especially considering that some of the evidence you've cited in the past has been... wanting.

And unlike you, I have an example. Remember when you cited this (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio&)? Well, the conclusions the study drew were based on interviews with 73 male college students, all of whom went to the same university in North Dakota. The small size alone means that there's a margin of sampling error of about +11.5%. In other words, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

Besides, I'd say that what he said was validated by his public shaming and subsequent firing. You can dress it up however you choose, but the fact remains: he accused Google of being a politically correct monoculture, and got fired for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. If Google intended to prove him wrong by doing this, they only made themselves look worse. It's the equivalent of responding to being called violent by punching the accuser in the face.

Thanks for the link, by the way. It taught me two valuable things. First, that Gizmodo hires the most brazen liars since Gaddafi's propagandists. The article calls it an "anti-diversity screed", when one of the memo's headers is "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You don't need to be Phoenix Wright to spot the contradiction.

The second is that comments sections can provide intellectually stimulating discussion, even on the laziest, most dishonest articles. I quite enjoyed reading them, so again, thanks for the link.

Direct question: how much of the memo did you actually read?

And I still can't muster any sympathy for those who wear a swastika, or a MAGA hat for that matter. Both stand for the politics of white racial supremacy but I guess, sure - you shouldn't launch uprovoked attacks on racist fuckholes not because it makes you look bad but because unprovoked attacks bad m'kay? Not gonna lose any sleep when it happens though.

Calling a MAGA hat equivalent to Nazi symbolism. Wow. You're really not helping your case.

Bottom line, ANTIFA's stated historical reason for existence, that you can't rely on the state to stop Nazis, was bourne out in Berkely, where the cops disarmed Antifa but not the right wing  thugs LARPing as freedom fighters (http://archive.is/JYBKt#selection-1055.0-1055.10) and in Charlottsville, where Heather Heyer was killed and that African American fella was thumped with poles by Nazis mere yards a police station, the cops just sorta hung back. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/could-the-police-have-prevented-bloodshed-in-charlottesville/536775/)

If the cops cannot be bothered defending a synagogue (https://www.timesofisrael.com/police-refused-to-protect-charlottesville-synagogue-during-far-right-march/) from crowds yelling "jews will not replace us" then the good police officers of Charlottsville are essentially advertising for Antifa. You don't want an out of control anti far right counterinsurgency? Get your fucking police to do their damn jobs!

Were those claims borne out? I don't think so, at least not to the extent you claim.

First, let's look at Berkeley. Again, we seem to be encountering the problem of you not reading your own sources. Rich Black seems to be claiming that Antifa were already attacking by the time the police disarmed them:

Quote
However, if it were not for the Police immediately disarming the first wave of Antifa, whom were in a full charge against us, the event would have been shut down before it began and would have resulted in tremendous blood shed.

If you're going to take him at his word, you better make sure you understand what he's saying. Speaking of which:

Quote
As it has been established before and remains an unwavering creed: The LRA does not condone nor promote violence at the events we organize. Careful measures were taken to ensure that, among our invited detail, there were none who appeared to have any desire to engage in physical confrontation. Those who appeared to have an interest in physical confrontation were removed from this detail prior to the event.

Quote
As far as Identity Evropa, the Alt-Right and the Sacramento Workers Party who showed up to attend our event: We did not extend an invitation to these particular groups and we had many denouncements in regards to them, prior to this event. When Nathan Damigo arrived I met with him in the center of the park and I told him that because of his affiliations, that his group was not welcome to occupy our space on the stage, and he would not be provided security.

Honestly, it's kind of hypocritical for you to accuse Damore of cherry-picking to back up a conclusion he's already decided.

And as for the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, again, your own article doesn't exactly support your black-and-white view of things:

Quote
Perhaps the Charlottesville police had the July experience in mind and opted to take a more hands-off approach this time around. Or perhaps they were just overwhelmed by the larger size of the rally—some 500 neo-Nazis and white supremacists, 10 times larger than the Klan march, plus hundreds of counter-demonstrators. That’s a large crowd anywhere, but it’s especially large for Charlottesville, which has fewer than 50,000 residents and a police department of fewer than 130 officers who don’t typically deal with events this size.

And that's just for starters. Again, if you're going to cite something, make sure to read it all the way through.

I agree that this was a failure for the Charlottesville police. Where I disagree is with the idea that the tragedy happened for ideological reasons, as well as the idea that it reflects a broader reality.

TL;DR Your evidence is lacking and your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 20, 2017, 03:09:49 am
Okay, first thing's first, that's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? Because like I said earlier, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And I'll be looking at it, especially considering that some of the evidence you've cited in the past has been... wanting.

Ooooh a serious accusation. Well, lets see if your google bro starts with a question or a conclusion.

Quote
Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
He concludes that Google is an echo chamber and this silences ideas. That's not a question it's a conclusion you ninny! The scientific method starts with a question about nature and then seeks to follow the evidence to where the evidence leads you. An exposition sets out an argument and then sets out to bolster it. Learn your fucking text types.

And unlike you, I have an example. Remember when you cited this (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio&)? Well, the conclusions the study drew were based on interviews with 73 male college students, all of whom went to the same university in North Dakota. The small size alone means that there's a margin of sampling error of about +11.5%. In other words, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
I didn't cite it you dumbass, I just checked my internet history that website only appears the one time I followed your link. So many people are telling you that you're full of shit you're getting them mixed up.

Besides, I'd say that what he said was validated by his public shaming and subsequent firing. You can dress it up however you choose, but the fact remains: he accused Google of being a politically correct monoculture, and got fired for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. If Google intended to prove him wrong by doing this, they only made themselves look worse. It's the equivalent of responding to being called violent by punching the accuser in the face.
Well, he must be the only person in history to be sacked for expressing views in public that make a company look bad. Your hypothetical that Google meant to prove him wrong had nothing to do with their decision, more likely Google wasn't engaging in debate they were firing an employee who was making them look stupid.

Thanks for the link, by the way. It taught me two valuable things. First, that Gizmodo hires the most brazen liars since Gaddafi's propagandists. The article calls it an "anti-diversity screed", when one of the memo's headers is "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You don't need to be Phoenix Wright to spot the contradiction.
Well, let's not hurt your fee fee's-we'll call it an exposition, an opinion piece even. What it isn't is science!

Also, the author cites non discrimination? Great-he must be on the side of angels and North Korea must be a Democratic Republic!

Direct question: how much of the memo did you actually read?

Direct answer: Fuck you with a pineapple Eva Braun, but I digress.

Quote
Left Biases
Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist
Right Biases
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic

Shit someone better tell trade unions that right to work laws are great because they change their ability to do their fucking jobs and tell Randroid libertarians that they should stop trying to drown the government in a bathtub while they're at it because "change is dangerous" dont'cha know. That's not even good politics let alone good science that's a list of stereotypes pulled out of the authors cavernous asshole.
Quote
They're (biological differences are) universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note that Googlebroz didn't cite any sources for this waffle (https://www.sciencealert.com/a-google-employee-was-fired-after-blaming-biology-for-tech-s-gender-gap-but-the-science-shows-he-s-wrong?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1) but an actual scientific study in 2001 found:
Quote
Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012)

From a 2010 psychology textbook: Handbook of gender research in psychology Chapter 2 Gender and Personality

Quote
research on social context suggests that what differences do exist may be better explained by social roles and situational contexts rather than by biological sex (http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781441914668-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-856119-p176842981)


So, right off the bat Googlebroz exposition is rendered dust because this core assumption. That men and women like what they're like because science sez they're the same cross culturally is a pile of fetid dingo kidneys. "Science" doesn't say that male and female differences are "universal across cultures", Scientists laugh out loud and throw food at Googlebroz and he cries.

Because you lack the self discipline to stick to one topic at one time I'll punt my response to your Nazi water carrying bullshit down to Flame and Burn where I can more fully describe the myriad ways you're full of shit and just how much you repulse me. (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7693.0)

Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on September 21, 2017, 02:57:47 am
Oh hey, look at this:

http://splinternews.com/google-guy-fired-for-sexist-ravings-is-back-with-a-big-1818587399

This is my "not surprised" look.

Pay attention to the progression in his messages. He goes from:
Quote
The KKK is horrible and I don’t support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. “Grand Wizard”?

to:

Quote
If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK.

In a few steps.

And before someone comes in and says that he's not promoting the KKK I wish to ask: Is KKK the only place that acknowledges the "coolness of DnD terms?" Because I know for a fact that not only is that claim not true it is no different from the claims in his original manifesto. If you read between the lines you see that his messages are incomprehensible non-sequitors unless you look at them with the assumption that the subtext is "KKK is cool." Same as his "scientific manifesto" that only makes sense if his point is to claim that women are bad at tech jobs and it's their own fault.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 21, 2017, 04:31:18 pm
Oh hey, look at this:

http://splinternews.com/google-guy-fired-for-sexist-ravings-is-back-with-a-big-1818587399

This is my "not surprised" look.

Pay attention to the progression in his messages. He goes from:
Quote
The KKK is horrible and I don’t support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. “Grand Wizard”?

to:

Quote
If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK.

In a few steps.

And before someone comes in and says that he's not promoting the KKK I wish to ask: Is KKK the only place that acknowledges the "coolness of DnD terms?" Because I know for a fact that not only is that claim not true it is no different from the claims in his original manifesto. If you read between the lines you see that his messages are incomprehensible non-sequitors unless you look at them with the assumption that the subtext is "KKK is cool." Same as his "scientific manifesto" that only makes sense if his point is to claim that women are bad at tech jobs and it's their own fault.

(https://i.imgur.com/kGisi63.png)

Really? Are you sure it's not just you going with the worst possible interpretation?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 21, 2017, 05:08:19 pm
Oh hey, look at this:

http://splinternews.com/google-guy-fired-for-sexist-ravings-is-back-with-a-big-1818587399

This is my "not surprised" look.

Pay attention to the progression in his messages. He goes from:
Quote
The KKK is horrible and I don’t support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. “Grand Wizard”?

to:

Quote
If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK.

In a few steps.

Really? Are you sure it's not just you going with the worst possible interpretation?
What's the best possible interpretation Lana? He's concerned this will happen?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/9d/1e/499d1e05f5102d50994f0841ddcf6680.jpg)
"What did you roll?"
"14-88"
"Zounds, Harvey-you levelled up to a white guy!"
(Everybody)"LEVEL UP ALL, ZIEG KEKISTAN!"


BADD (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BADD) (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) were right, D&D is a gateway drug!!! Just not to Satanism and sex parties.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 22, 2017, 02:19:34 pm
Oh hey, look at this:

http://splinternews.com/google-guy-fired-for-sexist-ravings-is-back-with-a-big-1818587399

This is my "not surprised" look.

Pay attention to the progression in his messages. He goes from:
Quote
The KKK is horrible and I don’t support them in any way, but can we admit that their internal title names are cool, e.g. “Grand Wizard”?

to:

Quote
If you make the actual KKK the only place where you can acknowledge the coolness of D&D terms, then you’ll just push people into the KKK.

In a few steps.

Really? Are you sure it's not just you going with the worst possible interpretation?
What's the best possible interpretation Lana? He's concerned this will happen?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/49/9d/1e/499d1e05f5102d50994f0841ddcf6680.jpg)
"What did you roll?"
"14-88"
"Zounds, Harvey-you levelled up to a white guy!"
(Everybody)"LEVEL UP ALL, ZIEG KEKISTAN!"


BADD (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BADD) (Bothered About Dungeons and Dragons) were right, D&D is a gateway drug!!! Just not to Satanism and sex parties.

How do you know he's not just shitposting?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 22, 2017, 02:38:09 pm
Shitposting is literally all he does.

Shitposting got him sacked!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on September 22, 2017, 02:38:52 pm
How do I know that he's not a spider wearing a suit made out of human skin?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 22, 2017, 03:11:45 pm
And unlike you, I have an example. Remember when you cited this (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio&)? Well, the conclusions the study drew were based on interviews with 73 male college students, all of whom went to the same university in North Dakota. The small size alone means that there's a margin of sampling error of about +11.5%. In other words, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
I didn't cite it you dumbass, I just checked my internet history that website only appears the one time I followed your link. So many people are telling you that you're full of shit you're getting them mixed up.

http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=18.msg305431#msg305431 (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=18.msg305431#msg305431)

Uh huh. (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/WZOffTa9X1FZe/giphy.gif)

Besides, I'd say that what he said was validated by his public shaming and subsequent firing. You can dress it up however you choose, but the fact remains: he accused Google of being a politically correct monoculture, and got fired for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. If Google intended to prove him wrong by doing this, they only made themselves look worse. It's the equivalent of responding to being called violent by punching the accuser in the face.
Well, he must be the only person in history to be sacked for expressing views in public that make a company look bad. Your hypothetical that Google meant to prove him wrong had nothing to do with their decision, more likely Google wasn't engaging in debate they were firing an employee who was making them look stupid.

He didn't intend to express them in public. It was an internal memo that got leaked (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/google-anti-diversity-memo-leaked-women-tech/). And Google's response was a clearly just trying to avoid the conversation (https://qz.com/1047826/googles-response-to-the-viral-diversity-memo-is-a-classic-conversation-avoidance-technique/).

Thanks for the link, by the way. It taught me two valuable things. First, that Gizmodo hires the most brazen liars since Gaddafi's propagandists. The article calls it an "anti-diversity screed", when one of the memo's headers is "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You don't need to be Phoenix Wright to spot the contradiction.
Well, let's not hurt your fee fee's-we'll call it an exposition, an opinion piece even. What it isn't is science!

Also, the author cites non discrimination? Great-he must be on the side of angels and North Korea must be a Democratic Republic!

*sighs* You know, if he were half as sexist as you claim, he probably wouldn't be suggesting what he thinks are better ways to reduce the gender gap:

Quote
Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I
outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's
representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in
many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:
● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming
and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how
people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive
ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing this).
● Women on average are more cooperative
○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may
be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google.
Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't
necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in
education.

But of course, this won't convince you. You've decided that he's a woman-hater, and you'll ignore or rationalize any evidence to the contrary.

I have to give you some credit, however. At least you're actually looking at the manifesto.

Quote
They're (biological differences are) universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note that Googlebroz didn't cite any sources for this waffle (https://www.sciencealert.com/a-google-employee-was-fired-after-blaming-biology-for-tech-s-gender-gap-but-the-science-shows-he-s-wrong?perpetual=yes&limitstart=1) but an actual scientific study in 2001 found:
Quote
Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012)

From a 2010 psychology textbook: Handbook of gender research in psychology Chapter 2 Gender and Personality

Quote
research on social context suggests that what differences do exist may be better explained by social roles and situational contexts rather than by biological sex (http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781441914668-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-856119-p176842981)


So, right off the bat Googlebroz exposition is rendered dust because this core assumption. That men and women like what they're like because science sez they're the same cross culturally is a pile of fetid dingo kidneys. "Science" doesn't say that male and female differences are "universal across cultures", Scientists laugh out loud and throw food at Googlebroz and he cries.

Okay, fine. Let's do things your way. For the moment, let's assume he was wrong. Did he really deserve to be fired? Did he really deserve to be raked over the coals? Even if he's incorrect, I don't think he deserved to be smeared as a sexist.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 22, 2017, 03:17:44 pm
Yep, shit. I did cite it. Forgot about that.

Anyhoo-like you he's trollin', unlike you he's dumb enough to do it using his real name while referencing the company he works for.

Nah, don't care.

Next?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 22, 2017, 04:07:48 pm
I think we've actually made some progress Lana, this isn't about science. It's a labor dispute, that's cool-I'm no scientist but I'm a trade unionist, I can do labor disputes and no, I don't think a faceless multinational is acting out of the goodness of it's stone cold heart.

What happened here was that there's a company embroiled in a labor dispute with some women employees claiming wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Some idiot puts on company letterhead that OF COURSE male employees are better than women...it gets out.

Their HR department does this:

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080)

Their legal department does this:

(http://doublefacepalm.com/doublefacepalm.png)

The plaintiffs bringing the case against Google do this:

(http://kippure.com/img/party-venue-wicklow.jpg)

Because this gimboid just put tried to justify the shit Google are trying to say never happens in a company communication which looks just great in court.

Of course they fucking sacked the idiot, he didn't give them a choice. And yes, in any jurisdiction I've heard of private communications that mention company policy are public the moment they get out. If you privately text message to the bosses favorite toady that he picks his nose and eats it and it hits the local papers-hell yes he has grounds to sack you! Even if he makes the call over a bowl of his own boiled snot.

This wasn't a whistleblower speaking truth to power, this was a shithead talking shit about an issue that was currently before the courts in an internal Memo that presumably had cute copyrighted Google doodles all over it!

That's just dense Lana, it's science!


Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 22, 2017, 09:34:41 pm
What.

Okay, this little theory of yours... it holds absolutely no water. Damore was fired on August 7 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo). The plaintiffs didn't file their suit against Google until over a month later (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/google-gender-pay-lawsuit.html?mcubz=0). So unless time suddenly became non-linear and nobody told me, what you're suggesting is factually wrong. How hard is it to check a couple of dates?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 22, 2017, 09:43:56 pm
The Department of Labor sued Google for discriminatory practices in January (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap), Google boy does his brain fart. Then women file suit themselves. Good timing, he gave 'em some good ammo.

Google had been fighting against allegations of systematically underpaying its female employees in court prior to sacking him.

Quote
The initial lawsuit was initiated when the company didn’t turn over some requested data on employee compensation during a September 2015 audit

As said in your OP, multiple lawsuits, Lana.

If this is a work rights issue I'll side with the female employees, they want to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. He's just an idiot!

Link's up there, I'll try to remember. Feel free to check the dates.

Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 23, 2017, 11:38:14 am
The Department of Labor sued Google for discriminatory practices in January (https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/8/15229688/department-of-labor-google-gender-pay-gap), Google boy does his brain fart. Then women file suit themselves. Good timing, he gave 'em some good ammo.

Google had been fighting against allegations of systematically underpaying its female employees in court prior to sacking him.

Quote
The initial lawsuit was initiated when the company didn’t turn over some requested data on employee compensation during a September 2015 audit

As said in your OP, multiple lawsuits, Lana.

If this is a work rights issue I'll side with the female employees, they want to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. He's just an idiot!

Link's up there, I'll try to remember. Feel free to check the dates.

Again, what.

I say that because you said something completely different up above. This is what you said earlier:

What happened here was that there's a company embroiled in a labor dispute with some women employees claiming wage discrimination on the basis of gender. Some idiot puts on company letterhead that OF COURSE male employees are better than women...it gets out.

I don't see the labor department mentioned anywhere in your original post. Can you really blame me for not knowing what you were talking about?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on September 23, 2017, 06:09:08 pm
You could have very well looked it up, Lana.

You know, Google it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 23, 2017, 09:08:40 pm
Direct question Lana: Were Google in court because they were allegedly systematically underpaying their female employees prior to sacking the author of the memo? Yes or no.

Direct question number two: Could the memo negatively affect Google's court cases, plural, involving said allegation that they were systematically underpaying their female employees? Yes or no.

Direct question three: Would it have been prudent for Google not to have sacked the author of the memo in the context of the company being involved in court cases about gender discrimination? Yes or no and why?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 24, 2017, 07:56:05 pm
You could have very well looked it up, Lana.

You know, Google it.

I already knew about it. But Tolpuddle didn't give any indication that he was talking about it. His phrasing made it seem like he was talking about the women's lawsuit.

Direct question Lana: Were Google in court because they were allegedly systematically underpaying their female employees prior to sacking the author of the memo? Yes or no.

Direct question number two: Could the memo negatively affect Google's court cases, plural, involving said allegation that they were systematically underpaying their female employees? Yes or no.

Direct question three: Would it have been prudent for Google not to have sacked the author of the memo in the context of the company being involved in court cases about gender discrimination? Yes or no and why?

In order, yes, no, and no.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on September 24, 2017, 08:12:53 pm
Wow...you're dumber then I thought if you think 2 and 3.

Ironbite-like seriously you have no idea how that could affect a court case.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 24, 2017, 08:25:07 pm
Wow...you're dumber then I thought if you think 2 and 3.

Ironbite-like seriously you have no idea how that could affect a court case.

How so? Fundamentally, the memo give suggestions regarding how to be more inclusive to women.

Besides, Tolpuddle specifically asked for yes or no answers, so he left me no room for nuance.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on September 24, 2017, 08:41:33 pm
Question 3 was giving you room to show your work btw.

Ironbite-a fact you didn't seem to see.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on September 24, 2017, 09:32:52 pm
Question 3 was giving you room to show your work btw.

Ironbite-a fact you didn't seem to see.

Nope, he was restricting me to yes or no answers. Ignore what he explicitly stated, and read the subtext that I can't prove even exists.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on September 24, 2017, 09:35:00 pm
Nope, he was restricting me to yes or no answers. Ignore what he explicitly stated, and read the subtext that I can't prove even exists.


You could have very well looked it up, Lana. You know, Google it.
I already knew about it. But Tolpuddle didn't give any indication that he was talking about it. His phrasing made it seem like he was talking about the women's lawsuit.
Direct question Lana: Were Google in court because they were allegedly systematically underpaying their female employees prior to sacking the author of the memo? Yes or no. Direct question number two: Could the memo negatively affect Google's court cases, plural, involving said allegation that they were systematically underpaying their female employees? Yes or no. Direct question three: Would it have been prudent for Google not to have sacked the author of the memo in the context of the company being involved in court cases about gender discrimination? Yes or no and why?


 In order, yes, no, and no.

 Bolding, italics, and underlining added for fucking emphasis. And for good measure, I made it larger. And BLUE.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 24, 2017, 10:27:21 pm
Wow...you're dumber then I thought if you think 2 and 3.

Ironbite-like seriously you have no idea how that could affect a court case.

How so? Fundamentally, the memo give suggestions regarding how to be more inclusive to women.
Yeah while pointing to their genders supposed genetic shortcomings, in a company memo.

No way that could go over badly in a gender discrimination case!

Google bills itself as a company that values inclusivity, the US Department of Labor and several women have alleged otherwise. This dude is suggesting that too much inclusivity could cost money.

Quote
Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google — with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences.

Said because he's alleging the women are all doing touchy-feely womany things and not putting in the hard yards like the dudes.

Quote
Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

Can't imagine how that could have any baring on a pay dispute that's been festering since 2015. Maybe giving women what they owe is just too costly?

Aside from the case itself it's downright embarrassing for a corporation describing itself as pro diversity to have an employee describing diversity policies as a commie plot.

Quote
The Harm of Google's biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google

That footnote, 7 being this:

Quote
[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

This is just how detached from reality this Google broz is, he's stating that the "veiled left ideology" behind Google's diversity policies is Marxist-Leninism. In case it needs stating, a major multinational publicly traded company cannot be by any meaningful definition Marxist or Leninist. Neither Karl Marx nor Vladimir Lenin said diddly squat about diversity policies in publicly traded capitalist corporations. The idea that a capitalist behemoth like Google is pushing an ideology that ultimately seeks an overthrow of the ruling class and to install a dictatorship of the proletariat is fucking insane!

And that's the thing, if he had said Apple or Microsoft or even Linux were pushing diversity policies that were a third column for Marxist/Leninist communism it wouldn't have looked so bad. He did it for the company he works for without any evidence for this absurd claim. That Google's actual commitment to diversity was being challenged in court certainly didn't help but bottom line he was being insane on a company letterhead on his company's dime.

TL/DR he was sacked for saying idiotic things against his employer's anti discrimination policies in a company communication which was made worse by them facing lawsuits for discriminatory policies in court.


Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Sigmaleph on September 26, 2017, 09:31:02 pm
Wow...you're dumber then I thought if you think 2 and 3.

Ironbite-like seriously you have no idea how that could affect a court case.

How so? Fundamentally, the memo give suggestions regarding how to be more inclusive to women.

Besides, Tolpuddle specifically asked for yes or no answers, so he left me no room for nuance.

General reminder that the direct question rule does not require that you play along with any such restrictions or even answer questions, only that you acknowledge them.

Also as a personal note I kind of agree with Lana on this? One guy complaining that Google's diversity policy favours women too much is the opposite of evidence that Google discriminates against women. It should not have any relevance to that case at all, but if it does it's hard to argue it proves Google is discriminatory.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on September 26, 2017, 09:47:04 pm
The cases themselves don't prove that Google is discriminatory, only that it's been alleged and there's a lot of money involved in the allegation.

One employees grumbling about diversity with specific reference to Cultural Marxism and an inexpert opinion about evolutionary psychology only reflects that the author believes that Googles diversity policies are bad.

Thiis is what is known. The US Dept of Labor and some of its employees believed that Google's policies were discriminatory enough to warrant investigation and litigation and one employee thinks their diversity policy goes too far.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 06, 2017, 03:07:47 pm
The cases themselves don't prove that Google is discriminatory, only that it's been alleged and there's a lot of money involved in the allegation.

One employees grumbling about diversity with specific reference to Cultural Marxism and an inexpert opinion about evolutionary psychology only reflects that the author believes that Googles diversity policies are bad.

Thiis is what is known. The US Dept of Labor and some of its employees believed that Google's policies were discriminatory enough to warrant investigation and litigation and one employee thinks their diversity policy goes too far.

So you're agreeing with Sigmaleph?

And in any case, Damore wasn't even a manager, let alone an exec. He was an engineer. His influence over company policy was negligible even before he got fired.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 06, 2017, 04:44:25 pm
Its still an indication that the executives above him tolerate and encourage this shit.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 07, 2017, 09:37:16 pm
And in any case, Damore wasn't even a manager, let alone an exec. He was an engineer. His influence over company policy was negligible even before he got fired.
It doesn't look good if you are defending yourself against allegations of gender discrimination if you tolerate a hostile work environment.

If you tolerate assertions in a company communication that assert or imply that women are less capable of performing engineering roles by virtue of their gender then you are tolerating a hostile work environment.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: SCarpelan on October 08, 2017, 05:55:11 am
The thing here is that the firing is problematic from labor rights perspective. The guy is an asshole and the company shouldn't tolerate him sending memos like that even if he is well meaning im his ignorance - he did suggest how to be more welcoming towards women but he based it on a sexist, misleading analysis.

In my opinion the proper response would have been a public denouncement of the memo and a chat with Damore to try to make him understand the situation. Even if he can't be made to understand why the memo was a bad idea he is not a problem if he doesn't repeat his behaviour and isn't in a leadership position. Only if he is or becomes a repeat offender is a firing a proper solution.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on October 08, 2017, 07:23:02 am
Do we know if he was a repeat offender?  People like that usually don't just start shit outta the blue, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that he might have had other incidences of inappropriate behaviour.  Besides, the bigger and more public the cockup, the more severe the punishment.  Considering that Google has been trying to establish a more inclusive image, a black eye like this is something they can ill afford.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: SCarpelan on October 08, 2017, 08:15:52 am
Do we know if he was a repeat offender?  People like that usually don't just start shit outta the blue, so it isn't unreasonable to assume that he might have had other incidences of inappropriate behaviour.
I haven't seen it said anywhere that this is the case but put the conditional sentence to the end of my previous post to make it clear I have no problem with the firing if this is the case.

Quote
Besides, the bigger and more public the cockup, the more severe the punishment.  Considering that Google has been trying to establish a more inclusive image, a black eye like this is something they can ill afford.
He was trying to make suggestions about how to be more inclusive, not trying to fight the company's goal. He just did it in a way that exposed his own sexism and stupidity. The company had the option of making a public denouncement and make it clear the employee is getting disciplined. It should also have been made clear that Demore has killed any chance of being promoted to a leadership position within the company unless he demonstrates that he understands why he was wrong and builds a long track record of understanding and inclusive behaviour. I would be surprised if he was smart enough to have this required understanding but as long as he understood to keep his mouth shut about any gender related issues I would have no problem keeping him as a low level employee.

Yes, from the company's perspective firing him is the easiest and safest solution. I just take worker rights seriously enough that I expect them to try to find another working solution first before taking this step.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 08, 2017, 09:20:55 pm
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Art Vandelay on October 08, 2017, 11:16:43 pm
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?
"She" asks after over 130 posts of people describing, often in minute detail, why they think this guy is sexist.

Just in case there was even a shred of doubt that this is yet another Ultimate Dragon sock.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: SCarpelan on October 09, 2017, 03:23:06 am
A new person entered the thread which means (s?)he thinks there is a chance to rekindle the fight and perhaps gain something that feels like a victory.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on October 09, 2017, 04:48:16 am
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?

Well if I had to guess I say Damore is sexist because of pride.  Guys like him prize reason and intelligence and rationality and want to see themselves as the embodiment of such things.  But human beings are irrational and the smarter someone is the better they are at rationalizing their irrationality.  So when the big mean feminists and SJWs come along and tell them they aren't perfectly rational and are buying into common prejudices and that their position isn't just because they are smarter then everyone else but is also because they had a head start due to gender, racial or class privilege they get angry and see this as an attack on themselves.  So they jump on dumb rationalizations like "the dumb broads are just biologically inferior that's why they disagree with me."  These beliefs flatter their egos, causing their pride to grow and thus become more and more likely to take greater and greater offense over smaller and smaller bits of criticism until they become full blown misogynists.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 10, 2017, 12:10:22 pm
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?
"She" asks after over 130 posts of people describing, often in minute detail, why they think this guy is sexist.

Just in case there was even a shred of doubt that this is yet another Ultimate Dragon sock.

I'd like you to please stop making accusations that you can't back up. And that goes for all of you.

Back on topic, I ask because from what I see, a lot of it is people making gargantuan leaps in logic or outright unsubstantiated assumptions. That's the point I was trying to make when I responded to Tol's three questions. I was hoping at least some of you would understand the frustration I was feeling in regards to people constantly interpreting Damore and his memo in really unflattering ways, often ignoring or rationalizing away evidence that doesn't fit their narrative in the process. At least, that's how I saw it. And the unwarranted attacks on my intelligence and character certainly didn't help.

When I asked why, I was offering each poster who views Damore as sexist a chance to state and justify their views, to try and convince me that their arguments have merit, and that they were based on actual evidence rather than preexisting assumptions. A chance to prove that I was incorrect in my views about their beliefs. So go ahead, make your case. I'm all ears.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 10, 2017, 03:42:09 pm
You're an idiot.

Ironbite-just so we're clear.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on October 10, 2017, 04:22:15 pm
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?

Well if I had to guess I say Damore is sexist because of pride.  Guys like him prize reason and intelligence and rationality and want to see themselves as the embodiment of such things.  But human beings are irrational and the smarter someone is the better they are at rationalizing their irrationality.  So when the big mean feminists and SJWs come along and tell them they aren't perfectly rational and are buying into common prejudices and that their position isn't just because they are smarter then everyone else but is also because they had a head start due to gender, racial or class privilege they get angry and see this as an attack on themselves.  So they jump on dumb rationalizations like "the dumb broads are just biologically inferior that's why they disagree with me."  These beliefs flatter their egos, causing their pride to grow and thus become more and more likely to take greater and greater offense over smaller and smaller bits of criticism until they become full blown misogynists.

I think you are touching on something important. There's that quote on how as long as you tell the poorest white man that he's still better than any black man he'll empty his pockets out for you. And really, that is something that appeals to people in all kinds of bigotry. If you feel unwanted, are poor, can't get a date or otherwise are down on your luck it can be a great distraction to use hate to fill the emptiness inside your heart.

It's not YOUR fault that things are bad. It is the OTHER who is to blame for your misery. YOU are not a bad person, it is the OTHER who is worse than you are. No matter how bad things may seem, at least on some level you are a superiour being to the OTHER. And don't forget that they link up with others who are like them and get peer support.

That's how Incels are born. Whether it is their fault or not that they couldn't get a girlfriend they seek to feel better by hating all women. Racists who live in a trailer park below poverty line believe that all will be better as long as immigrants and local "untermensch" are driven out or exterminated. Extremists who join KKK, Neo-Nazis or DAESH and become willing to commit crimes and even murder on other human beings because they have convinced themselves that it is the right and just thing to do for the OTHER.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 10, 2017, 05:15:24 pm
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?
Damore is pushing a pseudo scientific ideology of biological determinism to suggest that women are, by virtue of them being women, less suited to certain jobs than men hence his belief that diversity policies designed to deal with the effects of structural sexism are doomed.

This horse is dead, stop beating it!

As to the labor rights issue, although his co workers certainly expressed their disagreement loudly with his views (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/google-workers-slam-employees-antidiversity-memo-20170807-gxrcrr.html) I haven't seen evidence that it was a pattern of bad behavior.

It was however a high profile case in a company that bills itself as promoting diversity, if I expressed racist views which were leaked while I work a company that publicly promotes education and rights for asylum seekers I don't think my employer would need to give me repeated warnings before they fired me for this behavior.

Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Wurdulac on October 10, 2017, 06:32:41 pm
I think you are touching on something important. There's that quote on how as long as you tell the poorest white man that he's still better than any black man he'll empty his pockets out for you. And really, that is something that appeals to people in all kinds of bigotry. If you feel unwanted, are poor, can't get a date or otherwise are down on your luck it can be a great distraction to use hate to fill the emptiness inside your heart.

It's not YOUR fault that things are bad. It is the OTHER who is to blame for your misery. YOU are not a bad person, it is the OTHER who is worse than you are. No matter how bad things may seem, at least on some level you are a superiour being to the OTHER. And don't forget that they link up with others who are like them and get peer support.

That's how Incels are born. Whether it is their fault or not that they couldn't get a girlfriend they seek to feel better by hating all women. Racists who live in a trailer park below poverty line believe that all will be better as long as immigrants and local "untermensch" are driven out or exterminated. Extremists who join KKK, Neo-Nazis or DAESH and become willing to commit crimes and even murder on other human beings because they have convinced themselves that it is the right and just thing to do for the OTHER.

Huh.  So, either through a decent upbringing or just depression it seems I barely avoided becoming one of those shitheads.

Good to know.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 10, 2017, 06:41:31 pm
Believe the former newbie/lurker.  Cause the other is a mite depressing.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on October 11, 2017, 03:29:14 am
Huh.  So, either through a decent upbringing or just depression it seems I barely avoided becoming one of those shitheads.

Good to know.

Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone but based on what I've seen a lot of people who join extremist groups do so because they are looking for validation. Some seek validation for their bigotry, some just seek validation for existing.

Unfortunately those groups aren't healthy and even the ones who just joined club "hasn't kissed a girl and is tired of everyone making fun of it" because they wanted peer support are going to start taking in the hateful beliefs merely because they will be surrounded by them all the time. Unless they get out fast enough.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 11, 2017, 04:49:59 am
Huh.  So, either through a decent upbringing or just depression it seems I barely avoided becoming one of those shitheads.

Good to know.

Obviously it doesn't happen to everyone but based on what I've seen a lot of people who join extremist groups do so because they are looking for validation. Some seek validation for their bigotry, some just seek validation for existing.

Unfortunately those groups aren't healthy and even the ones who just joined club "hasn't kissed a girl and is tired of everyone making fun of it" because they wanted peer support are going to start taking in the hateful beliefs merely because they will be surrounded by them all the time. Unless they get out fast enough.
The thing is, unlike the case with real drugs, one set of bigoted beliefs can be like  an entry level drug. A lot of the alt right guys got their start in sexism (https://www.vox.com/culture/2016/12/14/13576192/alt-right-sexism-recruitment), Damore our google bro certainly fits that pattern. Vents his sexism, gets rejected in a severe way by his own employer no less, becomes more embittered.

A month passes and he starts tweeting about how cool senior officer positions in the KKK sound in tabletop RPG terms. Take one Gamergater, add salt, get a fresh baked salty Gruppenführer. Just like pretzels.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on October 13, 2017, 12:50:39 pm
I don't know much about Zoe, other than that she apparently made an overrated game, but the same goes for her.
I am in awe of someone who chases drama on the internet as much as you seem to and you doesn't know the skinny about Gamergate.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg)

This is my totally not skeptical face!

Lana is familiar with cultural Marxism (historically known as "cultural Bolshevism" or "cultural Judaism"), SJWs, space spaces, power + prejudice, James Damore, the Alt-right, and "alleged sexism," but unfamiliar with GamerGate. Bull-to-the-shit.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on October 13, 2017, 01:06:26 pm
What.

Okay, this little theory of yours... it holds absolutely no water. Damore was fired on August 7 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo). The plaintiffs didn't file their suit against Google until over a month later (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/google-gender-pay-lawsuit.html?mcubz=0). So unless time suddenly became non-linear and nobody told me, what you're suggesting is factually wrong. How hard is it to check a couple of dates?

Double post, your explanation is more spurious drivel that isn't convincing. It isn't uncommon in big suits to try to settle without filing. Very often, litigation begins with a demand letter saying "your client sucks ass, give my client money." The two sides talk, discuss the merits of the case and go back and forth. This can last several months as counsel attempts to settle prior to filing the case. Alternatively, it isn't uncommon to wait as late as you can before filing, only filing a few days before the statute of limitations. Again, in either hypo, Google would know of the threat of litigation when Damore wrote his sexist tirade; in fact, I first learned of the suit the day I learned of Damore's memo, on a drive home while listening to NPR.

Also, my employment law is rusty, but I believe the plaintiffs must first file a claim with the EEOC 150 or so days before a private attorney may prosecute the claim. Ergo, Google knew this suit was coming.

You looked for the first argument to make yourself look right without giving a solitary shit of its veracity. This is why I insult you, because I do not see enough good-faith on your end to actually warrant the investment of my time. Cheerio.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 13, 2017, 01:09:27 pm
OH Queen....you layth the best Smackdowns.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on October 13, 2017, 05:25:34 pm
See, the thing is that when someone actually knows the stuff they can lay a smackdown like that on random amateurs who just google stuff that looks like it might support their stance.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 13, 2017, 10:55:07 pm
I don't know much about Zoe, other than that she apparently made an overrated game, but the same goes for her.
I am in awe of someone who chases drama on the internet as much as you seem to and you doesn't know the skinny about Gamergate.

(https://imgflip.com/s/meme/Futurama-Fry.jpg)

This is my totally not skeptical face!

Lana is familiar with cultural Marxism (historically known as "cultural Bolshevism" or "cultural Judaism"), SJWs, space spaces, power + prejudice, James Damore, the Alt-right, and "alleged sexism," but unfamiliar with GamerGate. Bull-to-the-shit.

It's not that I don't know, and more that I don't care.

What.

Okay, this little theory of yours... it holds absolutely no water. Damore was fired on August 7 (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo). The plaintiffs didn't file their suit against Google until over a month later (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/technology/google-gender-pay-lawsuit.html?mcubz=0). So unless time suddenly became non-linear and nobody told me, what you're suggesting is factually wrong. How hard is it to check a couple of dates?

Double post, your explanation is more spurious drivel that isn't convincing. It isn't uncommon in big suits to try to settle without filing. Very often, litigation begins with a demand letter saying "your client sucks ass, give my client money." The two sides talk, discuss the merits of the case and go back and forth. This can last several months as counsel attempts to settle prior to filing the case. Alternatively, it isn't uncommon to wait as late as you can before filing, only filing a few days before the statute of limitations. Again, in either hypo, Google would know of the threat of litigation when Damore wrote his sexist tirade; in fact, I first learned of the suit the day I learned of Damore's memo, on a drive home while listening to NPR.

Also, my employment law is rusty, but I believe the plaintiffs must first file a claim with the EEOC 150 or so days before a private attorney may prosecute the claim. Ergo, Google knew this suit was coming.

You looked for the first argument to make yourself look right without giving a solitary shit of its veracity. This is why I insult you, because I do not see enough good-faith on your end to actually warrant the investment of my time. Cheerio.

You're accusing me of a lack of good faith? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Break any more promises lately?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 14, 2017, 03:18:01 pm
....what in the fuck is that supposed to be?

Ironbite-you did nothing to refute...anything.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 15, 2017, 08:17:39 am
Um, so far we've coveredt court cases, Gamergate, ANTIFA and Damore's conspiracy theory about a looming leftist cult of politically correct doom, or as Queen has elucidated us Cultural Marxism Judaism in a ruthless capitalist corporation together with his not-science explanation of why ladies don't make good engineers because of science, bro.

Which is all wizard fun Lana but so far you haven't answered the one poster with topical knowledge, Murdin.

(click to show/hide)


Askold already pointed out how the article resorts to lowbrow nitpicking to make its lame points. That's certainly true, but it won't be the focus of my criticism. There's worse, so much worse than that to be found in this Gish gallop, and this time our buddy will NOT be able to hide behind weak as shit reservations such as "there are a few things I'd have liked for it to cover in more depth, but overall, I think I agree with it". I wasn't lying when I said it was a very interesting read. There's a lot to learn here about the so-called "rationalist" mindset, and how it can become so utterly detached from the scientific enterprise.

And what better way to introduce this assassination of science, than with this audacious dismissal of the idea that correlations made by people the author agree with do not imply causation?

Quote
This is a case of what Garett Jones calls the Everest regression. He says that controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure there is not low. Or as I say, controlling for latitude, the Sahara desert has good weather.

The error here is that HDI and gender equality are substantially linked. Controlling for HDI or GDP is like controlling for gender equality. As a general case, all good things are correlated: technology, moral progress, GDP, country IQ, industrialisation tend to be coupled. We don’t need power to explain those differences.

Okay, let's follow his reasoning through. After controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure at the summit of the Everest is normal. This is obviously because altitude is the only factor (it actually isn't but w/e) that affects pressure at this position on the surface of Earth ; there's no need for an alternate explanation. Therefore, if after controlling for HDI the gender differences are normal for any set of gender-equality factors, it means... OH SH-

This would also be a questionable cause fallacy, of course. The entire point of Dr. Sadedin was to give an alternative interpretation of the same results (high HDI causes men to act more stereotypically masculine) that makes at least as much sense as the one this study was clearly designed around (gender equality causes people to act more stereotypically gendered), just to show that you can't easily conclude any causation from a mess of correlations that are also correlated with each other. The same mess of correlation that the blog's author actually mention while completely ignoring its actual implications. Science is fucking hard, guys.

The concept behind the "Everest regression" itself is a massive fallacy. Its implication that controlling for known external factors is fallacious is... beyond insane. You can't even argue that it denounces somehow "abusive" or "illegitimate" forms of control, either, because its textbook case IS logically sound and scientifically meaningful. We can evaluate the correlation between pressure and height (and maybe also temperature...) from other measurements. If the pressure at Mt Everest is NOT normal controlling for height, then there has to be an additional factor to explain this discrepancy.

Jones is an associate professor in economics at the Koch-funded George Mason University. From what I can guess, he invented his fallacy in order to defend IQ as some essential measurement of man, against trained psychologists who mostly see it as a tool which nicely correlates with many factors of social success. I'll let you make your own opinion of the man, his works, and whether his layman's stances on natural sciences are worth your consideration. Besides Googling his name, his Twitter is a good source of information ; Here's a reblog demonstrating his vision on what makes good science. (https://twitter.com/economistified/status/895709406364483585)

Incidentally, cursory knowledge of world geography would tell you the Sahara's weather is, in fact, particularly inhospitable even when accounting for latitude. Unless you define "good weather" as "sunny", in which case the Sahara has excellent weather regardless of latitude.

Quote
The paper says that initially, mental rotation differences were moderaly large, d=.59, for men primed male and women rimed female. (p=0.01).  For men and women both primed male, the effect was d=0.01. But what is the p-value or that? Well, p=0.94. Yes, 19 times larger than the standard 0.05 cutoff commonly accepted for statistical significance. For the whole set they report statistical significant results, but no effect size. We can also study statistical significance in the extreme case: female primed men and male primed women. If we plug in their data in a Welch’s t-test calculator, we get a p-value of 0.61. Again, not statistically significant.

(click to show/hide)

Like David Silverman in his interview by Bill O'Reilly, I... genuinely can't explain what I have in front of me. This is faux-scientific fetishism of the dumbest fucking kind, the end result of years of smug rationalist cargo cult enabled by the likes of Scott Alexander. That man's understanding of p-values is apparently limited to "low good, high bad".

The difference in test results between men and women both primed male is tiny. This results in a very high p-value. A valid interpretation of this p-value is that this kind of result would be very likely to be found if there was no difference between the two studied groups with regard to the studied characteristic. Or, to use a handy "Everest regression": when controlling for male priming, there's no observed difference in tests results between men and women. This tends to corroborate Dr. Sadedin's hypothesis that gender priming, not biological sex, is to blame for the widely measured disparity between men and women on spatial reasoning skills.

Meanwhile, I'm calculating a p-value around 0.014 for women primed female vs women primed male. I can't get the exact value without the group sizes, but my other calculations fit quite well with the blog author's numbers. In any case, that's actually quite significant. Obviously, this is also good for Dr. Sadedin's claim that gendered priming has an influence on test results.

I'm aware this study cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. In fact, I'm almost certain more data will come out or already exist, that directly contradicts these results. It doesn't matter. Even if the scores behind this study were found to be completely forged, it does not excuse or justify the blog author's hatchet job in any way whatsoever.

Quote
There is a significant overlap, yes. But if we look at the tails (https://econjwatch.org/articles/what-is-the-right-number-of-women-hints-and-puzzles-from-cognitive-ability-research), as I’ve been stressing over and over, one can still see massive differences.

The defilement of science is less eye-gouging than in the two previous exhibits, but there's a lot of different wrongs in this single point.
  • The linked article was written by an economist. Incidentally, the same economist with no background in natural sciences that pulled the Everest regression out of his ass.
  • It is, in fact, a libertarian political tract poorly disguised as a scientific study. Which is admittedly par for the course for an economist.
  • The blog author was trying to address the differences in software engineering skill between men and women. The relevant part of the article is about IQ instead.
  • Said part is based on a survey from Scotland, made in... 1932. That's right, 85 year old data from a fairly small and culturally homogeneous population.
  • On 11 year old kids.
  • The "massive differences" touted by the blog author... simply aren't that massive. Even at the very tail end of the chart, we have 277 boys for 203 girls, which is a bit over four boys for every three girls.
  • Inflated claims and abusive use of IQ as a measure for skill notwithstanding, this number does not even come close to explaining the truly massive gender disparities in software engineering.
From a more personal perspective, as a software engineer myself, I'm highly skeptical of the underlying claim that doing my job competently actually requires such extraordinary mental prowess.

As for the rest of the article past this point... it becomes pretty boring, to be quite honest. The author keeps talking past Dr. Sadedin's points, often rephrasing what she just said in a marginally more favorable way and then calling it a win. For a while, he just quotes relevant studies from actual scientists, wisely abstaining himself from adding his own commentary or conclusions. Then both the original response and the blog post drift into politics and I can finally be excused for not giving a shit. There isn't much to say about the author's self-congratulating conclusion, either.


(click to show/hide)


Obviously not a direct question this time, buddy, but... why do you hate science so much? Why do you keep using it as a blunt weapon against your rhetorical opponents, without showing any respect to its most fundamental principles? Why do you spew self-righteous bullshit like "I guess science is sexist now" or "rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically", only to effectively disown it by including such enormities in your narrative?

I mean... is it really worth it? What are you even trying to achieve here, and I actually do mean, here? You've already claimed Religion and Philosophy, Politics and Government, Society and History, was that not enough for you? Did you really have to bring your usual drivel to Science&Tech, incidentally the only place where I would give a fuck about it in in the first place, and then gloat openly over Queen taking the bait? And then take a blatant bait yourself, deliberately or not? Did you think you were the only one "clever" enough for that kind of dirty trick, or did you just decide to go along with the ride?

Because, unless making people exhaust themselves was somehow actually part of your goal, I'm pretty sure you haven't achieved anything here.
A post you haven't actually answered except to compliment Murdin on his sciencyness.
And that "criticism" of my position? I'll admit that Murdin is actually using science, and Askold actually criticized the memo itself, but the others were ridiculous. Between Cloud trying to debunk an article by attacking its authors and the website that hosted it, Queen snarking about alleged sexism, and niam Godwinning all over the place, their "criticism" is hardly worth even acknowledging. What I want is a scientific discussion. If I wanted to discuss politics, I'd have put this on the political board.

Weird you expressing your distaste in debating politics when you haven't actually debated someone with an expert opinion about the science in this thread-though you've seemed perfectly comfortable debating about ANTIFA and Zoe Quinn, looks to me like you ducked the scientist and moved back to safer territory.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 15, 2017, 06:12:33 pm
....what in the fuck is that supposed to be?

Ironbite-you did nothing to refute...anything.

Refute what? Her character assassination?

I'll admit that there are gaps in my knowledge regarding legal matters, and if Queen had just corrected me, I wouldn't have been upset. But she decided she'd make things personal. And that's the last thing you want to do in an argument with me. I have a long memory and can be a vindictive bitch. Not a good combination.

See, when Her Majesty accused me of bad faith, I can't help but suspect she's projecting. Earlier this year, she sent me a PM promising to stop accusing me of being a ban-dodger if I answered her question:

Yo, straight up. Just tell me and it stays between us. I don't bring it up again. Are you Ultimate Paragon?

And as a footnote, I am many things: a dirty tranny, a miscreant, a heretic... But, I am not a liar. If you say yes I don't tell peeps, and any accusation of paragon-ness is done. If you say no, I may not trust you, but it stays between us. I just believe that you are ultimate paragon, and the third incarnation of Dynamic dragon, and I just want to know what your up to; what is your endgame?

Emphasis mine.

Then, two days later, she says this:

No you're just intentionally being dense to misinterpret what I am saying. I said, as a group. As in, as a group, white men skewed Trump, and if they did not skew for Trump to such a degree, he wouldn't be president. That is not to say all white men, because as I said, statistics (and the website I linked to used percentages instead of blanket statements). This is why we already know you're paragon.

Emphasis mine.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Um, so far we've coveredt court cases, Gamergate, ANTIFA and Damore's conspiracy theory about a looming leftist cult of politically correct doom, or as Queen has elucidated us Cultural Marxism Judaism in a ruthless capitalist corporation together with his not-science explanation of why ladies don't make good engineers because of science, bro.

Which is all wizard fun Lana but so far you haven't answered the one poster with topical knowledge, Murdin.

(click to show/hide)

Weird you expressing your distaste in debating politics when you haven't actually debated someone with an expert opinion about the science in this thread-though you've seemed perfectly comfortable debating about ANTIFA and Zoe Quinn, looks to me like you ducked the scientist and moved back to safer territory.


What the hell are you blaming me for? Most of the other participants - including you - are the ones obsessing over the political implications. It wasn't me who got the ball rolling.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on October 15, 2017, 06:39:54 pm
You didn't say whether you ever answered her question.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 15, 2017, 09:28:28 pm
You didn't say whether you ever answered her question.

Wait, did I?

*checks sent messages, sees nothing*

Huh. I could've sworn I did. My bad. Sorry, Queen.

And as for GamerGate, I completely fail to see why I should care. At least, any more than I do about, say, Beliebers being toxic.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on October 15, 2017, 09:38:11 pm
My point was you have raised these messages to say that the Queen broke a promise allegedly given.  You never said what your response was, which would indicate whether you had taken her up on her offer.

Doesn't seem to indicate that she did break any promise to you.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on October 16, 2017, 03:00:01 am
I have a long memory

You didn't say whether you ever answered her question.

Wait, did I?

*checks sent messages, sees nothing*

Huh. I could've sworn I did. My bad. Sorry, Queen.

Seems Legit.

But hey I'm sure you just got emotional when you typed that.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 16, 2017, 04:29:09 am
Yes Lana, I did debate politics with you-a process that you find so tiresome, not to mention misplaced in the science and tech section of the board then along comes Murdin with who raises a bunch of scientific points disagreeing with you and you answer his criticism with a quick compliment that doesn't address the points Murdin raised.

So, don't debate politics and law with me. Debate science with Murdin. Answer Murdins points already.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 16, 2017, 05:09:43 pm
I have a long memory

You didn't say whether you ever answered her question.

Wait, did I?

*checks sent messages, sees nothing*

Huh. I could've sworn I did. My bad. Sorry, Queen.

Seems Legit.

But hey I'm sure you just got emotional when you typed that.

I said "long", not "perfect".

Yes Lana, I did debate politics with you-a process that you find so tiresome, not to mention misplaced in the science and tech section of the board then along comes Murdin with who raises a bunch of scientific points disagreeing with you and you answer his criticism with a quick compliment that doesn't address the points Murdin raised.

So, don't debate politics and law with me. Debate science with Murdin. Answer Murdins points already.

Then take a break from building strawmen. Nobody's forcing you to do it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 16, 2017, 05:36:17 pm
Oh wow that's kinda rich coming from you.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on October 16, 2017, 07:33:52 pm
Lana, why don't you just accept that nobody here is liable to be "converted" to believing the google dudebro did nothing wrong.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on October 16, 2017, 07:56:01 pm
I said "long", not "perfect".

It's a very convenient thing to be forgetting though.  Reminds me of another person who was here before who always made such mistakes.  Like when he made a "typo" that his brother was trans that he "forgot" to correct.  Gee what was his name again?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 16, 2017, 08:04:10 pm
Dynamic Paragon?  Ultimate Dragon?

Ironbite-Anal Reverse?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 17, 2017, 02:10:55 am

Then take a break from building strawmen. Nobody's forcing you to do it.

I'm building strawmen? Then surely you can show me where you answered Murdin's long list of points he raised in his post!

C'mon Lana, I'm the only one left in the thread asking you to answer the science points from the poster in the thread who knows his science at a level above "interested amatuer" and here you are wanting to trade insults.

Or...would you prefer to go back to shouting about Quinn and Antifa? Maybe speculating about your identity does it for you?

Because I saw a very detailed post challenging your reading of the science from someone who obviously knows their shit and here's you wanting to discuss anything but.

So, about Murdin's post:

(click to show/hide)


Askold already pointed out how the article resorts to lowbrow nitpicking to make its lame points. That's certainly true, but it won't be the focus of my criticism. There's worse, so much worse than that to be found in this Gish gallop, and this time our buddy will NOT be able to hide behind weak as shit reservations such as "there are a few things I'd have liked for it to cover in more depth, but overall, I think I agree with it". I wasn't lying when I said it was a very interesting read. There's a lot to learn here about the so-called "rationalist" mindset, and how it can become so utterly detached from the scientific enterprise.

And what better way to introduce this assassination of science, than with this audacious dismissal of the idea that correlations made by people the author agree with do not imply causation?

Quote
This is a case of what Garett Jones calls the Everest regression. He says that controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure there is not low. Or as I say, controlling for latitude, the Sahara desert has good weather.

The error here is that HDI and gender equality are substantially linked. Controlling for HDI or GDP is like controlling for gender equality. As a general case, all good things are correlated: technology, moral progress, GDP, country IQ, industrialisation tend to be coupled. We don’t need power to explain those differences.

Okay, let's follow his reasoning through. After controlling for height, the atmospheric pressure at the summit of the Everest is normal. This is obviously because altitude is the only factor (it actually isn't but w/e) that affects pressure at this position on the surface of Earth ; there's no need for an alternate explanation. Therefore, if after controlling for HDI the gender differences are normal for any set of gender-equality factors, it means... OH SH-

This would also be a questionable cause fallacy, of course. The entire point of Dr. Sadedin was to give an alternative interpretation of the same results (high HDI causes men to act more stereotypically masculine) that makes at least as much sense as the one this study was clearly designed around (gender equality causes people to act more stereotypically gendered), just to show that you can't easily conclude any causation from a mess of correlations that are also correlated with each other. The same mess of correlation that the blog's author actually mention while completely ignoring its actual implications. Science is fucking hard, guys.

The concept behind the "Everest regression" itself is a massive fallacy. Its implication that controlling for known external factors is fallacious is... beyond insane. You can't even argue that it denounces somehow "abusive" or "illegitimate" forms of control, either, because its textbook case IS logically sound and scientifically meaningful. We can evaluate the correlation between pressure and height (and maybe also temperature...) from other measurements. If the pressure at Mt Everest is NOT normal controlling for height, then there has to be an additional factor to explain this discrepancy.

Jones is an associate professor in economics at the Koch-funded George Mason University. From what I can guess, he invented his fallacy in order to defend IQ as some essential measurement of man, against trained psychologists who mostly see it as a tool which nicely correlates with many factors of social success. I'll let you make your own opinion of the man, his works, and whether his layman's stances on natural sciences are worth your consideration. Besides Googling his name, his Twitter is a good source of information ; Here's a reblog demonstrating his vision on what makes good science. (https://twitter.com/economistified/status/895709406364483585)

Incidentally, cursory knowledge of world geography would tell you the Sahara's weather is, in fact, particularly inhospitable even when accounting for latitude. Unless you define "good weather" as "sunny", in which case the Sahara has excellent weather regardless of latitude.

Quote
The paper says that initially, mental rotation differences were moderaly large, d=.59, for men primed male and women rimed female. (p=0.01).  For men and women both primed male, the effect was d=0.01. But what is the p-value or that? Well, p=0.94. Yes, 19 times larger than the standard 0.05 cutoff commonly accepted for statistical significance. For the whole set they report statistical significant results, but no effect size. We can also study statistical significance in the extreme case: female primed men and male primed women. If we plug in their data in a Welch’s t-test calculator, we get a p-value of 0.61. Again, not statistically significant.

(click to show/hide)

Like David Silverman in his interview by Bill O'Reilly, I... genuinely can't explain what I have in front of me. This is faux-scientific fetishism of the dumbest fucking kind, the end result of years of smug rationalist cargo cult enabled by the likes of Scott Alexander. That man's understanding of p-values is apparently limited to "low good, high bad".

The difference in test results between men and women both primed male is tiny. This results in a very high p-value. A valid interpretation of this p-value is that this kind of result would be very likely to be found if there was no difference between the two studied groups with regard to the studied characteristic. Or, to use a handy "Everest regression": when controlling for male priming, there's no observed difference in tests results between men and women. This tends to corroborate Dr. Sadedin's hypothesis that gender priming, not biological sex, is to blame for the widely measured disparity between men and women on spatial reasoning skills.

Meanwhile, I'm calculating a p-value around 0.014 for women primed female vs women primed male. I can't get the exact value without the group sizes, but my other calculations fit quite well with the blog author's numbers. In any case, that's actually quite significant. Obviously, this is also good for Dr. Sadedin's claim that gendered priming has an influence on test results.

I'm aware this study cannot be the be-all end-all on the subject. In fact, I'm almost certain more data will come out or already exist, that directly contradicts these results. It doesn't matter. Even if the scores behind this study were found to be completely forged, it does not excuse or justify the blog author's hatchet job in any way whatsoever.

Quote
There is a significant overlap, yes. But if we look at the tails (https://econjwatch.org/articles/what-is-the-right-number-of-women-hints-and-puzzles-from-cognitive-ability-research), as I’ve been stressing over and over, one can still see massive differences.

The defilement of science is less eye-gouging than in the two previous exhibits, but there's a lot of different wrongs in this single point.
  • The linked article was written by an economist. Incidentally, the same economist with no background in natural sciences that pulled the Everest regression out of his ass.
  • It is, in fact, a libertarian political tract poorly disguised as a scientific study. Which is admittedly par for the course for an economist.
  • The blog author was trying to address the differences in software engineering skill between men and women. The relevant part of the article is about IQ instead.
  • Said part is based on a survey from Scotland, made in... 1932. That's right, 85 year old data from a fairly small and culturally homogeneous population.
  • On 11 year old kids.
  • The "massive differences" touted by the blog author... simply aren't that massive. Even at the very tail end of the chart, we have 277 boys for 203 girls, which is a bit over four boys for every three girls.
  • Inflated claims and abusive use of IQ as a measure for skill notwithstanding, this number does not even come close to explaining the truly massive gender disparities in software engineering.
From a more personal perspective, as a software engineer myself, I'm highly skeptical of the underlying claim that doing my job competently actually requires such extraordinary mental prowess.

As for the rest of the article past this point... it becomes pretty boring, to be quite honest. The author keeps talking past Dr. Sadedin's points, often rephrasing what she just said in a marginally more favorable way and then calling it a win. For a while, he just quotes relevant studies from actual scientists, wisely abstaining himself from adding his own commentary or conclusions. Then both the original response and the blog post drift into politics and I can finally be excused for not giving a shit. There isn't much to say about the author's self-congratulating conclusion, either.


(click to show/hide)


Obviously not a direct question this time, buddy, but... why do you hate science so much? Why do you keep using it as a blunt weapon against your rhetorical opponents, without showing any respect to its most fundamental principles? Why do you spew self-righteous bullshit like "I guess science is sexist now" or "rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically", only to effectively disown it by including such enormities in your narrative?

I mean... is it really worth it? What are you even trying to achieve here, and I actually do mean, here? You've already claimed Religion and Philosophy, Politics and Government, Society and History, was that not enough for you? Did you really have to bring your usual drivel to Science&Tech, incidentally the only place where I would give a fuck about it in in the first place, and then gloat openly over Queen taking the bait? And then take a blatant bait yourself, deliberately or not? Did you think you were the only one "clever" enough for that kind of dirty trick, or did you just decide to go along with the ride?

Because, unless making people exhaust themselves was somehow actually part of your goal, I'm pretty sure you haven't achieved anything here.

I'd love to hear your opinion on all this, please do elucidate us!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on October 22, 2017, 09:19:57 pm
Yo, straight up. Just tell me and it stays between us. I don't bring it up again. Are you Ultimate Paragon?

And as a footnote, I am many things: a dirty tranny, a miscreant, a heretic... But, I am not a liar. If you say yes I don't tell peeps, and any accusation of paragon-ness is done. If you say no, I may not trust you, but it stays between us. I just believe that you are ultimate paragon, and the third incarnation of Dynamic dragon, and I just want to know what your up to; what is your endgame?

/me looks at date and time
/me looks through phone

Well, it's official: I had too much to drink that night.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 29, 2017, 05:04:57 pm
Lana, why don't you just accept that nobody here is liable to be "converted" to believing the google dudebro did nothing wrong.

Maybe not, but then again, you can't reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. To me, it seems like a lot of you decided Damore was sexist and then found reasons to support the conclusion you already made. I find this quote from Askold particularly telling:

If you read between the lines you see that his messages are incomprehensible non-sequitors unless you look at them with the assumption that the subtext is "KKK is cool." Same as his "scientific manifesto" that only makes sense if his point is to claim that women are bad at tech jobs and it's their own fault.

I said "long", not "perfect".

It's a very convenient thing to be forgetting though.  Reminds me of another person who was here before who always made such mistakes.  Like when he made a "typo" that his brother was trans that he "forgot" to correct.  Gee what was his name again?

Okay, seriously. What did this guy do to you? Did he steal your money? Burn down your house? Kill your blood brother? Why are you so fixated on him?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 29, 2017, 05:41:21 pm
Cause you keep coming back even after it's clear you wore out your welcome.

Ironbite-you know, it's how we chew through toys.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 29, 2017, 05:53:02 pm
Cause you keep coming back even after it's clear you wore out your welcome.

Ironbite-you know, it's how we chew through toys.

I'm pretty sure making this kind of accusation based on no evidence violates the "don't be a dick" rule.

And why are you letting this guy get under your skin so badly? How long has he been living rent-free in your head? I get that this guy was annoying. But most of us are able to move on from an annoyance and not let it get to us after it's gone. What's more pathetic: being a lolcow, or having a chip on your shoulder about a lolcow?

I'd ask how I can prove I'm not him, but I'm increasingly sure that nothing would ever put this idiocy to rest. You want to believe that I'm this guy.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on October 30, 2017, 02:39:15 am
Okay, seriously. What did this guy do to you?

You know full well what you did.

I admit I do fund it hilarious how your calling us fixated on your what fifth sock puppet account?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 30, 2017, 03:03:46 pm
Okay, seriously. What did this guy do to you?

You know full well what you did.

I admit I do fund it hilarious how your calling us fixated on your what fifth sock puppet account?

"I'm going to keep making this accusation I can't prove, because repeating something enough makes it the truth."

Direct question, why do you think I'm this idiot?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 30, 2017, 03:39:52 pm
Because you post in his style, you know how to tweek us and, oh yeah, you carry water for Nazis.

Ironbite-that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on October 31, 2017, 12:55:28 am
Direct question, why do you think I'm this idiot?

Because you asked that question.

No really that might have just killed any remaining doubts I had.  Something Paragon did on multiple occasions was ask "Why do you think I'm sexist?" after he was called sexist.  Then it would be explained to him why what he had said was sexist (or transphobic or bigoted etc).  Then after that had been explained, if he was called sexist again, he would repeat all innocent like "Why do you think I'm sexist?" as if it had not already been explained.

You have asked multiple times why I think you are Paragon.  And I have answered multiple times.  And yet you still ask "Why do you think I'm this idiot?" as if we haven`t already said why.

You act the same way, use the same words and phrases about the same issues.  We know it's you.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on October 31, 2017, 10:47:15 am
Direct question, why do you think I'm this idiot?

Because you asked that question.

No really that might have just killed any remaining doubts I had.  Something Paragon did on multiple occasions was ask "Why do you think I'm sexist?" after he was called sexist.  Then it would be explained to him why what he had said was sexist (or transphobic or bigoted etc).  Then after that had been explained, if he was called sexist again, he would repeat all innocent like "Why do you think I'm sexist?" as if it had not already been explained.

You have asked multiple times why I think you are Paragon.  And I have answered multiple times.  And yet you still ask "Why do you think I'm this idiot?" as if we haven`t already said why.

You act the same way, use the same words and phrases about the same issues.  We know it's you.

The reason I keep asking is because I want to see if you have anything of substance. Since you haven't given me anything yet, I have to assume that you only have your biases to go on. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you're the problem? Here's my theory: you still have a score to settle with your little white whale, so you convince yourself that any poster even vaguely similar is actually him with a new face.

So for the umpteenth time: put up or shut up. Because I think making accusations of dishonesty without a single shred of even circumstantial evidence constitutes being a dick. I wouldn't harp on about that so much, except there's a rule specifically against it:

Don't be a dick: Guidelines to make sure we don't piss each other off too much. You might be given a pass for breaking these, depending on context. Note: The list is not exhaustive, try to be guided by the general spirit rather than specific rules alone.

I'd prefer to shut you up by proving you wrong, but since it's increasingly clear you think I'm a ban-dodger because you want to, I know you'll never accept that you're wrong. So it looks like the only way to stop you from making these unsubstantiated accusations is to point out that you're breaking the rules.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on October 31, 2017, 03:17:02 pm
Right out of the Dynamic Paragon playbook.

Ironbite-good jorb.,
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: davedan on October 31, 2017, 04:38:52 pm
You know while I think a certain posting style is   evidence I  mean that is how they do textual analysis on ancient texts like the  bible it would be pretty hard for Lana to prove she's not paragon. I'm not sure how you would do it       .
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on October 31, 2017, 04:54:08 pm
Hi Lana, nice to see you back and here you are back doing exactly what I predicted. Focussing entirely on speculations about your identity and politics in this alleged science and technology thread.

Direct question: Why didn't you respond to any of the points in Murdin's post that I quoted above?

I put it to you that you know that Damore has no scientific credibility so you prefer to bang on about politics and drama! It's safer.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 03, 2017, 08:12:27 pm
Hi Lana, nice to see you back and here you are back doing exactly what I predicted. Focussing entirely on speculations about your identity and politics in this alleged science and technology thread.

Direct question: Why didn't you respond to any of the points in Murdin's post that I quoted above?

I put it to you that you know that Damore has no scientific credibility so you prefer to bang on about politics and drama! It's safer.

Two reasons:

1. Murdin isn't annoying me or making accusations he can't prove.

2. I want to deal with the "politics and drama" so that it doesn't derail a more productive conversation.

Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:

A blatantly right wing source that has articles that call "leftists" hypocrites regarding Islam (http://quillette.com/2017/07/18/leftist-hypocrisy-islam-setting-stage-violence/),

Maybe you're not, but some leftists are (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-is-the-left-so-blinkered-to-islamic-extremism-8679265.html).

rails against "SJWs,"

You mean the people who dox over Halloween decorations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-halloween-display-or-a-faux-lynching-a-hanging-figure-creates-tensions-in-a-suburban-neighborhood/2017/10/31/62bdf8d2-be67-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.b604c4c5f392)? That's a point in their favor, IMO.

calls the gender pay gap a first world problem and argues against it with typical reductionism (http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/), [/quote]

And accurately points out that it's not always a result of sexism:

Quote
As of December 2016, only 30 per cent of the funded chair positions were held by women. However, between 2000 and 2015, 31 per cent of applicants for the jobs were from women. Based on these numbers it would be impossible to argue that sexist hiring practices are the cause of the gender imbalance in research chairs. Fewer women hold research chair positions because fewer women apply; it’s that simple.

full on denies the existence of white priveledge (http://quillette.com/2017/06/24/skepticism-white-privilege/)

Considering the theory is heavily based on a paper that admits to not being a scholarly analysis, I'd say skepticism is warranted.

and takes the term "regressive left" seriously. (http://quillette.com/2017/06/04/manchesters-children-regressive-left/)

When Muslim reformers get labelled "anti-Muslim extremists" (https://www.thedailybeast.com/im-a-muslim-reformer-why-am-i-being-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist), maybe they have good reasons for it.

Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.

And that matters because...?

A quick look at Geoffrey Miller's Twitter account (https://twitter.com/primalpoly?lang=en) shows him regularly (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895180127113551874) making (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895059054942449664) typical (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/895052824794542080) alt-right (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894986041047883776) statements (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894224207093141504) about free speech (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894144962031493120),

Maybe this is just my left-libertarian leanings talking, but I don't see how being against corporate censorship makes somebody "alt-right".

"western civilization" (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894086327846744064)


Since when does praising the West make somebody "alt-right"?

and "SJWs. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/893917783817408512)

It's not just the alt-right that dislikes SJWs. That's a common claim made by SJWs with an "us vs. them" mentality.

He also agreed with comparing Damore's firing with being a victim of a terror attack (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894913208548569088)

I actually agree with you on this one. Getting fired isn't the same thing as getting murdered.

and has shown pride in being featured on Breitbart. (https://twitter.com/primalpoly/status/894820023050653697) (So. Many. Links.)

Where's the pride?

David Schmitt didn't see a red flag from Damore being interviewed by Stephen Molyneux. (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895143379276845057)

...Really reaching with this one.

He also accuses "the political left" of being anti-science in regards to evolution (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/895045714069401600)
and regularly (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894839715563786241) excuses regressive views (https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/894252488806862852) on women as the result of evolution.

Suggesting that differences between men and women might be at least partly biological is hardly "regressive".

He also retweeted this fucking meme (https://twitter.com/garwboy/status/886644806352588800).

Now you're just grasping at straws.

Lee Jussim regularly writes blog posts (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201603/rabble-rouser-roundup-campus-free-speech-widely-threatened) repeating the claim that free speech is under attack on college campuses. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201511/mostly-leftist-threats-mostly-campus-speech)

That would be a strike against him if it wasn't true.

He also regularly posts right wing blogs about gender gaps, (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/gender-bias-in-science-or-biased-claims-gender-bias) feminism (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201512/when-is-feminist-not-feminist) and liberal bias. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201408/liberal-bias-distorts-scientific-psychology-and-education)

He didn't even write one of those posts. And the two he did write are nowhere near as bad as you're implying they are.

He also used this image (https://cdn.psychologytoday.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-inline-half/public/field_blog_entry_images/tolerant%20liberal%2C%20Tom%20Fernandez_0.jpg?itok=XVmZJjHK) in multiple articles.

Kinda proving him right, aren't you?

Debra Soh thinks gender neutral parenting is bad. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-soh-gender-neutral-parenting-20170106-story.html)

Maybe we're reading the article differently, but I don't see it. From my reading, she's not condemning it, just saying there's not much point to it. She's not saying it's harmful to kids or anything.

She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/)

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?

and has stated that she thinks "identity politics" is attacking science. (http://www.playboy.com/articles/identity-politics-have-no-place)

You're implying a more alarmist tone than what the article actually says. I don't know if you meant to or not, just thought I'd point that out.

Besides, she's not wrong (http://catalystjournal.org/ojs/index.php/catalyst/article/view/122/pdf_3).
[/quote]

There, I finally dealt with your little gish gallop. It feels good to get that out of the way.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on November 03, 2017, 08:24:27 pm
That's not a gish gallop you Nazi water carrying moron.  That's actually dealing with the topic at hand.

Ironbite-god you're dumb.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on November 04, 2017, 01:51:22 am
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/)

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: dpareja on November 04, 2017, 02:28:22 am
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/)

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.

I would argue that when you're a public institution, then you run into narrow-right (as opposed to broad-principle) free speech issues.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on November 04, 2017, 02:44:45 am
At this point I think it's clear to everyone that Lana knows that they don't have a case. That's why they haven't replied to Murdin. They want a comeback or counterpoint, not to admit that they were wrong and have "lost."
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 04, 2017, 04:08:36 am
Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:

You want to prove that you're not who we think you are... and you pull out the single stupidest tactic of the Ultimate Paragon playbook by specifically calling ME out long after I've stopped arguing with you. I mean, I COULD go through your post point by point and explain how many of those points are fallacious, aren't even arguments (linking an article instead of making a point is not an argument) and demonstrate things like a complete lack of understanding of free speech (as Svata pointed out, free speech does not entitle you to an audience or a platform. Saying that "deplatforming" is censorship is like saying that you have to listen to a Klansman's opinions on people of color in the name of free speech), but I don't have to.

The fact that you're responding to me THREE MONTHS LATER, long after I stopped arguing with you instead of responding to Murdin trying to argue against you in good faith shows that you have no interest in actually discussing these things, you just want to be right. You want us to acknowledge that you've beaten us and the fact that you have zero credibility (and are quite possibly just using a new account to evade at least one ban) and no one here will ever take you seriously at this point makes me wonder WHY you think your bad faith arguments are going to get us to acknowledge that you're right about anything.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 04, 2017, 10:16:52 am
[
She has also repeated the bullshit about free speech being under fire on college campuses (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-need-to-protect-free-speech-on-campus/article35476933/)

It's not "bullshit", it's true. What do you call speakers being deplatformed?




NO. ONE. IS. UNDER. AN. OBLIGATION. TO. PROVIDE. A. PLATFORM. FOR. ANYONE.



At this point I think it's clear to everyone that Lana knows that they don't have a case. That's why they haven't replied to Murdin. They want a comeback or counterpoint, not to admit that they were wrong and have "lost."

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

Also, direct question: why aren't you reprimanding them for their blatantly dickish behavior? Normally, I wouldn't ask that of you, but since it's against the rules...

Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:

You want to prove that you're not who we think you are... and you pull out the single stupidest tactic of the Ultimate Paragon playbook by specifically calling ME out long after I've stopped arguing with you. I mean, I COULD go through your post point by point and explain how many of those points are fallacious, aren't even arguments (linking an article instead of making a point is not an argument)

...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

and demonstrate things like a complete lack of understanding of free speech (as Svata pointed out, free speech does not entitle you to an audience or a platform. Saying that "deplatforming" is censorship is like saying that you have to listen to a Klansman's opinions on people of color in the name of free speech), but I don't have to.

No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

The fact that you're responding to me THREE MONTHS LATER, long after I stopped arguing with you instead of responding to Murdin trying to argue against you in good faith shows that you have no interest in actually discussing these things, you just want to be right. You want us to acknowledge that you've beaten us and the fact that you have zero credibility (and are quite possibly just using a new account to evade at least one ban) and no one here will ever take you seriously at this point makes me wonder WHY you think your bad faith arguments are going to get us to acknowledge that you're right about anything.

No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Svata on November 04, 2017, 12:18:23 pm
Why did you quote me and then say nothing in response to it??
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on November 04, 2017, 03:28:15 pm
Because Lana has no response to that.  She just wants us to think she's got one.

Ironbite-an amazingly stupid strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 04, 2017, 04:18:07 pm
...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

Do you even know what reading comprehension is? My post made one major point: Your sources are bad. All of those links? Were there to back up that point. It's really not that hard to understand what I was trying to say.

Quote
No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PLATFORM.

If someone tells you that you're not going to use their platform, you have not been censored. You're still free to believe whatever the fuck you want to be believe. Your rights have not been violated.

Quote
No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.

Well, if the shoe fits....
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 04, 2017, 05:42:30 pm
No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

You really are just here for the drama aren't you? If you weren't you would have addressed Murdin's points to defend the position of Damore and his supporters but you're much more interested in defending your ego than your position.

Just take it down to flame and burn already, this was never a science and tech thread. At best it's about the politics of diversity and Damore's opposition to it but I don't think you even care about that. You just want to troll angry reactions out of people and watch the sparks fly. We have a place for that, F&B-that's what it's for!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 04, 2017, 05:55:24 pm
Because Lana has no response to that.  She just wants us to think she's got one.

Ironbite-an amazingly stupid strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off.

Actually, I accidentally hit "post". What I was going to say was that, in many cases, disinvitation amounts to raising a stink until the event gets cancelled. I don't support the use of mob pressure to shut down public meetings.

...Isn't that exactly what you did?!

Do you even know what reading comprehension is? My post made one major point: Your sources are bad. All of those links? Were there to back up that point. It's really not that hard to understand what I was trying to say.

And my post made one major point: most of your "criticisms" held water like a colander. All of those links? Were to back up that point.

Besides, you certainly complained a lot about my sources being "right-wing" (which automatically means they're bunk, apparently), but you never refuted them. So don't act like you won.

Quote
No, the two aren't even remotely similar. There's a difference between refusing to listen to somebody and trying to prevent other people from hearing what they have to say.

YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PLATFORM.

If someone tells you that you're not going to use their platform, you have not been censored. You're still free to believe whatever the fuck you want to be believe. Your rights have not been violated.

What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?

Quote
No, it's because you got me mad by "subtly" accusing me of being in bed with the alt-right. I'll admit my response to you was emotionally motivated, however.

Well, if the shoe fits....

Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

You really are just here for the drama aren't you? If you weren't you would have addressed Murdin's points to defend the position of Damore and his supporters but you're much more interested in defending your ego than your position.

Just take it down to flame and burn already, this was never a science and tech thread. At best it's about the politics of diversity and Damore's opposition to it but I don't think you even care about that. You just want to troll angry reactions out of people and watch the sparks fly. We have a place for that, F&B-that's what it's for!

I'm sorry, you're accusing me of being a troll? Not the people calling me a "Nazi water-carrier"? Not the people accusing me of ban-dodging based on zero evidence?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 04, 2017, 06:00:34 pm
Well, you only respond to people who insult you enough to warrant your time.

No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure Murdin called you a disingenuous, science-hater more interested in pushing your ideological wheelbarrow than getting to the truth of the matter.

 
I fully expected our buddy to jump on the fact that I was supporting some of the memo's claims, and then deflect the burden of proof on us for the rest. Sure enough:
What evidence? Seriously, what evidence? Even Murdin, for all his/her criticisms, didn't actually disprove any of Damore's statements, and even acknowledged that he was right about a lot of things.

Nevermind, I got the order wrong! But I guess it doesn't matter too much when the two utterly predictable rhetorical pirouettes are condensed in a single sentence.

Our buddy here has never had any interest in mutually constructive discourse. I think we're all aware of that by now. Assuming good faith is a beautiful idea, but we also have to accept the fact that people rarely initiate or join this kind of discussion without an ulterior motive. Some simply don't give two shits about wisdom or understanding or any of these soft-hearted degenerate progressive values ; they just want to be right, and pulling all their weight towards their narrative is the most efficient way to achieve that goal.

Obviously not a direct question this time, buddy, but... why do you hate science so much? Why do you keep using it as a blunt weapon against your rhetorical opponents, without showing any respect to its most fundamental principles? Why do you spew self-righteous bullshit like "I guess science is sexist now" or "rather than approaching this ideologically, let's look at it scientifically", only to effectively disown it by including such enormities in your narrative?

Apparently these don't get under your skin sufficiently to garner a response. Clearly his facts were boring and his insults were too highbrow to rustle your jimmies. You aren't here for the discussion, just the trash talk.

If you were here for the issue at hand you might have responded to Murdin's takedown of the Damore-supporting Nintil blogs use of the "Everest Regression". His criticism of the authors interpretation of probability values or that blogs use of survey data from some remote corner of Scotland with a tiny population done in the early decades of the 20th century but that would have been boring.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 04, 2017, 07:04:06 pm
Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

I'm done trying to argue with you. You didn't address my point. You took each of my statements about why I think your source was pure alt-right horse shit and did one of two things; either say "no, you're wrong" without actually making a point or say "no you're wrong" while linking to an article without actually making a point. You never even made your own argument. But that's not why I call you alt-right.

I call you alt-right because unfailingly do you parrot alt-right talking points. You show the same kind of complete lack of understanding of free speech. You trot out their buzzwords like "SJW" and "regressive left." You sea lion like them. You manage to find ways to agree with them on even the most idiotic of points. You're either alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer and only you seem to be blind to that.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Eiki-mun on November 05, 2017, 05:15:30 pm

What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?


I want to focus on this one sentence in particular. It really depends on the actions of the third party in question. If they choose to use their free speech to remind those giving the platform that their actions may have financial or other consequences, or if they choose to protest or use their free speech to shout down the person given the platform using their own platform, then it's not censorship by any means. If they, oh, say...

Decide to shoot the people (http://www.gainesville.com/news/20171020/three-charged-in-shooting-after-spencer-talk) who are exercising their free speech rights, (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/charlottesville-protest-police.html?_r=0) then that's obviously censorship. Among other things, like attempted murder.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 05, 2017, 07:37:32 pm
Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?

I'm done trying to argue with you. You didn't address my point. You took each of my statements about why I think your source was pure alt-right horse shit and did one of two things; either say "no, you're wrong" without actually making a point or say "no you're wrong" while linking to an article without actually making a point. You never even made your own argument. But that's not why I call you alt-right.

I call you alt-right because unfailingly do you parrot alt-right talking points. You show the same kind of complete lack of understanding of free speech. You trot out their buzzwords like "SJW" and "regressive left." You sea lion like them. You manage to find ways to agree with them on even the most idiotic of points. You're either alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer and only you seem to be blind to that.

You're only proving my point. Believe it or not, I actually thought your opinion might've been based on an innocent misunderstanding. But now, I know that I'm only "alt-right" because your definition of the term is hilariously broad. The term "regressive left" was coined by Maajid Nawaz, a Pakistani-British Muslim. My views on free speech were inspired in part by Frederick Douglass, hardly somebody I'd expect the alt-right to admire. If believing in the right to express unpopular opinions makes me alt-right, then I guess the ACLU is alt-right too. Your explanation of why you think I'm alt-right says a lot more about your ignorance and prejudices than any flaw on my part. Since I now know that we're working on fundamentally different definitions of the term, I'm just going to ignore any further accusations you might give.

But that doesn't mean I'm giving up hope on you. You're not stupid, and you have the capacity to learn. I'd just like to warn you that lumping everybody you disagree with into the same category never ends well. I used to make the mistake of doing that, and it came back to bite me in the ass. Don't let that happen to you.


What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?


I want to focus on this one sentence in particular. It really depends on the actions of the third party in question. If they choose to use their free speech to remind those giving the platform that their actions may have financial or other consequences, or if they choose to protest or use their free speech to shout down the person given the platform using their own platform, then it's not censorship by any means. If they, oh, say...

Decide to shoot the people (http://www.gainesville.com/news/20171020/three-charged-in-shooting-after-spencer-talk) who are exercising their free speech rights, (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/charlottesville-protest-police.html?_r=0) then that's obviously censorship. Among other things, like attempted murder.

Wholeheartedly agreed on the latter part, but not so much on the former.

Quote from: Frederick Douglass
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.

Granting the right to speak but not the right to hear is like granting the right to sell but not the right to buy. Before you mistake my meaning, I don't have a problem with debate. Arguments are not censorship, they're responses. I don't have a problem with protesting speakers either. What I do mind is trying to prevent a speaker from being heard. When you do that, you are robbing their audience of their right to listen.

Consider the following scenario: George Takei is invited to speak about LGBT issues at Regent University by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance (for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, let's pretend Regent has one). Some of the school's more vocally religious students take offense to what they believe he will say. They start a campaign to have the talk cancelled, claiming that what he's previously said is "violent" and "harmful". When that fails, they try to force the event's cancellation through intimidation. This time, they succeed. Was Mr. Takei censored? Was his audience wronged?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on November 05, 2017, 07:57:31 pm
God you're adorable.

Ironbite-you really are.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 05, 2017, 08:55:33 pm
God you're adorable.

Ironbite-you really are.

Do you have anything of substance to add? Or are you just going to condescend?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 05, 2017, 09:16:34 pm
Yes, you're of the true progressives here to educate us mere mortals about true progressivism-even though it involves discussing dull politics.

When were you going to get back to Murdin's critique  which was actually about science in this alleged science and tech thread?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Cloud3514 on November 06, 2017, 12:11:10 am
Ironbite condescending? After your last response to me? Oh, wow. You're really incapable of self-awareness, aren't you?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on November 06, 2017, 12:47:14 am
That fits in with the alt-right's general shtick - they know the real way (it just so happens to involve knowing when, as a good minority, to shut the fuck up when a white man talks, especially if he wants to talk over you) and you're smart so you should be able to accept their ways.

Tied in with this is using Free Speech to cover everything - even or especially when its not really something covered by the first amendment. Someone got fired at their job for shouting "FILTHY JEW!"? Censorship.

That is just how they operate.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on November 06, 2017, 01:33:43 am
Okay Lana for the sake of this post I'm going to assume you are not Dynamic Dragon/Ultimate Paragon.

This is the thing, you've only expressed support for freedom of speech in situations where it was the alt-right or white guys saying things considered sexist or racist.  You've said nothing about free speech in other contexts, ie Liberty University booting an author for being anti-trump.  https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/4/16597988/liberty-university-anti-trump-author-falwell-jonathan-martin-evangelical

Or when I brought up the issue of gamergate, a movement based on trying to silence feminists who criticize gaming culture, you were non-committal but sympathetic to the pro-censorship side. 

That sounds more like someone out to protect assholes right to be assholes then freedom of speech.

And remember, we all think you are Paragon.  Again, I am assuming for now that you aren't, but try to look at it from our perspective: right after a guy who on previous occasion had been banned and come back on sock puppet accounts had been banned again, and a new member shows up with the same opinions.  I can understand how that is frustrating but it does seem suspect.  And if you were paragon, that means you are someone who has been here for years yelling about Free Speech whenever a white man is called out for being an asshole but silent or openly in favor of alt-rightish types censoring other people.

Davedan said there is no way for you to prove you aren't paragon.  But I will stop and admit I was wrong, if you can show yourself to be someone who takes a consistent stand for free speech instead of only when a white man might be punished for being a jerk.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 06, 2017, 09:50:35 am
I already have (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7682.msg311390#msg311390). Repeatedly (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7685.msg311520#msg311520). But just so we're clear; I condemn that incident, as well as the time it happened to Julie Bindel (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/07/julie-bindel-banned-from-u-manchester). As much as I hate her for being a biphobic, transphobic misandrist, I support her right to have her voice heard. So yeah, it's not just white supremacist troglodytes whose free speech rights I defend.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on November 06, 2017, 01:21:37 pm
No one has the right to have their voice heard. They have the right to free speech but you cannot force others to listen to them and you cannot force people to offer them a place to speak.

So you can make your speech at a public street corner but demanding that a school gives you a lecture hall and force people to sit there quietly and listen to your speech is not a right.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Skybison on November 06, 2017, 02:19:53 pm
Okay we've got two sentences, one written to defend not subject racist white guys to hate speech laws, and a statement you will defend a transphobe.

Yep checks out.  You're not alt-right.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 06, 2017, 03:23:16 pm
I already have (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7682.msg311390#msg311390). Repeatedly (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7685.msg311520#msg311520). But just so we're clear; I condemn that incident, as well as the time it happened to Julie Bindel (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/07/julie-bindel-banned-from-u-manchester). As much as I hate her for being a biphobic, transphobic misandrist, I support her right to have her voice heard. So yeah, it's not just white supremacist troglodytes whose free speech rights I defend.
DIRECT QUESTION LANA, ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MURDIN'S CONTENTION THAT DAMORE'S SUPPORTERS ARE USING BUNK SCIENCE AND STATISTICS?

Or are you have you completely given up on the pretense that this thread has anything to do with science or technology?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on November 06, 2017, 03:26:04 pm
She gave up on that long ago.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 06, 2017, 04:05:16 pm
She gave up on that long ago.
Certainly proves Murdin's thesis that Lana is only interested in science as a cosh to whack their enemies with that gets discarded the moment it becomes inconvenient.

If this facsimile science thread really is about politics I just wish Lana would actually be honest about her political leanings. Say what you will about Contrarian he wears his heart on his sleeve. Lana is more of a "Fox News" liberal who murmurs a few liberal talking points to establish their liberal cred but exists to promote a conservative agenda. Basically, she's Colmes from "Hannity and Colmes."
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 06, 2017, 04:28:53 pm
No one has the right to have their voice heard. They have the right to free speech but you cannot force others to listen to them and you cannot force people to offer them a place to speak.

So you can make your speech at a public street corner but demanding that a school gives you a lecture hall and force people to sit there quietly and listen to your speech is not a right.

Who said anything about forcing people to listen? If you don't want to hear it, you don't have to. What I'm saying is that deplatforming somebody hurts their audience too.

I already have (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7682.msg311390#msg311390). Repeatedly (http://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=7685.msg311520#msg311520). But just so we're clear; I condemn that incident, as well as the time it happened to Julie Bindel (http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/07/julie-bindel-banned-from-u-manchester). As much as I hate her for being a biphobic, transphobic misandrist, I support her right to have her voice heard. So yeah, it's not just white supremacist troglodytes whose free speech rights I defend.
DIRECT QUESTION LANA, ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER MURDIN'S CONTENTION THAT DAMORE'S SUPPORTERS ARE USING BUNK SCIENCE AND STATISTICS?

Or are you have you completely given up on the pretense that this thread has anything to do with science or technology?

I'm going to. But this subject matter has never been my forte. I'm going to read some more material on the topic, and then I'll give my response.

And since you're yelling at me, I'm going to repeat my disagreement with your assertion that Damore is sexist. Then again, I base my stance on what he actually said.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on November 06, 2017, 05:33:51 pm
So do we dippy.

Ironbite-guess you can't understand that.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 06, 2017, 05:53:09 pm
Someone who believes that one race is innately superior at stuff- a racist.
Someone who believes that one gender is innately superior to another-not a sexist, according to Lana.

Ok.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 06, 2017, 08:56:29 pm
Someone who believes that one race is innately superior at stuff- a racist.
Someone who believes that one gender is innately superior to another-not a sexist, according to Lana.

Ok.

You'd have a point if he actually said that. But he never says that women are less good at coding than men, only that our interests tend to lie in other areas.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 07, 2017, 12:22:15 am
Someone who believes that one race is innately superior at stuff- a racist.
Someone who believes that one gender is innately superior to another-not a sexist, according to Lana.

Ok.

You'd have a point if he actually said that. But he never says that women are less good at coding than men, only that our interests tend to lie in other areas.

*cough*

Quote
I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes...

"Interests lie in other areas" because of biology, eh Lana?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on November 12, 2017, 11:46:33 am
Yes, it looks bad... taken out of context. Here's the full context:

Quote
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
* They’re universal across human cultures
* They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
* Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
* The underlying traits are highly heritable
* They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

He does mention abilities once, yes, but that's part of his general argument for natural sex differences. His argument about Google and coding doesn't appeal to any specific ability differences. Instead, he stresses differences of interest, using several specific examples to make this point.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on November 12, 2017, 03:26:58 pm
That's Skyfire's "Women can't be mechanics because their tits get in the way" to a T.

Ironbite-fuck off with that shit.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on November 12, 2017, 03:36:13 pm
Yes, it looks bad... taken out of context. Here's the full context:

Quote
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
* They’re universal across human cultures
* They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
* Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
* The underlying traits are highly heritable
* They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

He does mention abilities once, yes, but that's part of his general argument for natural sex differences. His argument about Google and coding doesn't appeal to any specific ability differences. Instead, he stresses differences of interest, using several specific examples to make this point.
It's the core of his general argument. His general argument is that Google's diversity policy is bad because women are biologically less inclined to want certain jobs. That's biological determinism that, if applied to different ethnicities, would rightly be called racism.

In order to justify his political position he then cites whatever interpretation of the avaliable evidence justifies his position and ignores that which contradicts it. That's not a scientific approach.

Related, this isn't a thread about science and technology. This is a thread about politics, specifically labor relations. It's not a tech issue by virtue of the fact that it happened in a tech company and it's not a science issue by virtue of the fact that Damore uses science when it's convenient to bolster a political point of view.

I note you still haven't answered Murdin's takedown of the "science" used in Damore's manifesto. Still researching, I guess.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on December 16, 2017, 10:53:24 am
(https://i.imgur.com/3rFrlvl.png)

There we go.

I didn't notice the name at first so I assumed this was going to be about the climate change or something.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 16, 2017, 11:15:33 am
Jumping Jesus, if that's his actual mug, I'm not surprised he's a douchebag.  He looks like the kind of obnoxious little weed that'd get shoved into a locker after correcting the syntax of Gristle McJockstrap one too many times with a smug little prick smile on his face.  Guess he got tired of getting the shit beaten out of him by barely-literate apes and decided to try and aim at someone he feels is lower than him...without realizing that the thing at which he's aiming is his own reflection.

Like, I'm a geeky ass motherfucker, and even I want to give that little bastard a siwrlie.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 16, 2017, 03:25:00 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/3rFrlvl.png)

There we go.

I didn't notice the name at first so I assumed this was going to be about the climate change or something.

I love how she assumes the worst.

By the way, Askold, you have yet to answer the direct question I asked:

Also, direct question: why aren't you reprimanding them for their blatantly dickish behavior? Normally, I wouldn't ask that of you, but since it's against the rules...

Jumping Jesus, if that's his actual mug, I'm not surprised he's a douchebag.  He looks like the kind of obnoxious little weed that'd get shoved into a locker after correcting the syntax of Gristle McJockstrap one too many times with a smug little prick smile on his face.  Guess he got tired of getting the shit beaten out of him by barely-literate apes and decided to try and aim at someone he feels is lower than him...without realizing that the thing at which he's aiming is his own reflection.

Like, I'm a geeky ass motherfucker, and even I want to give that little bastard a siwrlie.

Making a lot of assumptions based on his appearance alone...
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on December 16, 2017, 04:12:44 pm
Jumping Jesus, if that's his actual mug, I'm not surprised he's a douchebag.  He looks like the kind of obnoxious little weed that'd get shoved into a locker after correcting the syntax of Gristle McJockstrap one too many times with a smug little prick smile on his face.  Guess he got tired of getting the shit beaten out of him by barely-literate apes and decided to try and aim at someone he feels is lower than him...without realizing that the thing at which he's aiming is his own reflection.

Like, I'm a geeky ass motherfucker, and even I want to give that little bastard a siwrlie.

URGE TO SHOVE DAMORE INTO A LOCKER...RISING!!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 16, 2017, 04:34:07 pm
Is it direct question time again? Hey Lana when are you gonna address the points in Murdin's post?

Gosh darn that horrible woman for assuming that man wasn't telling her that her girly genetics make her less likely to pursue a career in tech weren't for her own damned good. Also you lot, stop tormenting the nerd. It's wedgies first damnit!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 16, 2017, 08:21:04 pm
Jumping Jesus, if that's his actual mug, I'm not surprised he's a douchebag.  He looks like the kind of obnoxious little weed that'd get shoved into a locker after correcting the syntax of Gristle McJockstrap one too many times with a smug little prick smile on his face.  Guess he got tired of getting the shit beaten out of him by barely-literate apes and decided to try and aim at someone he feels is lower than him...without realizing that the thing at which he's aiming is his own reflection.

Like, I'm a geeky ass motherfucker, and even I want to give that little bastard a siwrlie.

Making a lot of assumptions based on his appearance alone...

...Oh noes?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on December 16, 2017, 09:23:15 pm
a) That's not "assuming the worst." Damore is there saying that he got fired for making his "women cannot into computers" document and that the belief that women are equal to men in computers is as silly as believing that santa is real. The context makes it clear that that is what he is saying.

b) You are acting like a dick, dodging questions and defending racists, misogynists and Nazis in almost every thread you comment in. I think it is quite understandable why the others no longer give you the benefit of doubt.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 16, 2017, 11:37:27 pm
a) That's not "assuming the worst." Damore is there saying that he got fired for making his "women cannot into computers" document and that the belief that women are equal to men in computers is as silly as believing that santa is real. The context makes it clear that that is what he is saying.

He never says anything about abilities, just interests.

b) You are acting like a dick, dodging questions and defending racists, misogynists and Nazis in almost every thread you comment in. I think it is quite understandable why the others no longer give you the benefit of doubt.

Your definition of "defending" is very broad. Same with "misogynist" and "racist," and probably "Nazi" too while I'm at it.

And you're one to talk about dodging questions, considering you literally just did that.

Is it direct question time again? Hey Lana when are you gonna address the points in Murdin's post?

Gosh darn that horrible woman for assuming that man wasn't telling her that her girly genetics make her less likely to pursue a career in tech weren't for her own damned good. Also you lot, stop tormenting the nerd. It's wedgies first damnit!

So you acknowledge that he's talking about interest, rather than abilities. Good, now we're getting somewhere.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 16, 2017, 11:46:41 pm
Yes, interests that arise due to biology, according to Damore.

See, Hard Manly Science sez lassies just don't want all that sciency, engineery stuff. It's in their biology to like kitten posts instead.

It's Science(tm)!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 16, 2017, 11:57:36 pm
Yes, interests that arise due to biology, according to Damore.

See, Hard Manly Science sez lassies just don't want all that sciency, engineery stuff. It's in their biology to like kitten posts instead.

It's Science(tm)!

You mock, but a growing body of research suggests that interest differences are at least partly biological (https://www.city.ac.uk/news/2016/july/infants-prefer-toys-typed-to-their-gender,-says-study).

Quote
Children as young as 9 months-old prefer to play with toys specific to their own gender, according to a new study from academics at City University London and UCL.

The paper, which is published in the journal of Infant and Child Development, shows that in a familiar nursery environment significant sex differences were evident at an earlier age than gendered identity is usually demonstrated.

The research therefore suggests the possibility that boys and girls follow different developmental trajectories with respect to selection of gender-typed toys and that there is both a biological and a developmental-environmental components to the sex differences seen in object preferences.

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 17, 2017, 12:11:03 am
The report you cited was about toys.

This is the science and tech thread but Tonka trucks is a bit of a stretch!

So Lana, should we base human resources policies on a study showing that lads like cap guns then?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 17, 2017, 07:46:00 am
Or that caps like lad guns?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on December 17, 2017, 05:30:00 pm
Or that guns like lad caps?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on December 19, 2017, 08:09:02 pm
The report you cited was about toys.

This is the science and tech thread but Tonka trucks is a bit of a stretch!

So Lana, should we base human resources policies on a study showing that lads like cap guns then?

Oh my nonexistent god, are you serious?

This can't be real. You've been lecturing me about science for what seems like an eternity, and you don't understand the scientific implications of this? What we have here is evidence that boys and girls are interested in different things from a very early age, which casts a lot of doubt on the notion that the gender imbalance in the tech industry happens only for societal reasons.

And Askold, I'm going to be blunt: as a moderator, I don't think you're doing a very good job. And you still haven't satisfactorily answered my question.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on December 19, 2017, 10:52:38 pm
Yes, it answers a scientific question about gender using a group an age bracket and a question that was unrelated to Damore's thesis about women's supoosed choices about careers.

One study suggesting that biology is a factor among children for making choices about toys does not validate Damore's thesis that the same holds true for adults about an entirely different type of choice. It certainly doesn't discount structural barriers for women in employment in technology which Damore favors minimising.

The question is not "can biology affect human choice at all", rather it's whether Damore's thesis, that biology and it's effect on women's choices is responsible for employment disparities in STEM in general and computer fields in particular as opposed to sexism. This study on toy preference doesn't do that!

Gonna answer Murdin's points now? There was that fascinating case from one of the "academics" backing Damore using Data from the Early 20th century, from Scotland and also- from kids.

A tiny sample size of kids.

Quote
There is a significant overlap, yes. But if we look at the tails (https://econjwatch.org/articles/what-is-the-right-number-of-women-hints-and-puzzles-from-cognitive-ability-research), as I’ve been stressing over and over, one can still see massive differences.

The defilement of science is less eye-gouging than in the two previous exhibits, but there's a lot of different wrongs in this single point.
  • The linked article was written by an economist. Incidentally, the same economist with no background in natural sciences that pulled the Everest regression out of his ass.
  • It is, in fact, a libertarian political tract poorly disguised as a scientific study. Which is admittedly par for the course for an economist.
  • The blog author was trying to address the differences in software engineering skill between men and women. The relevant part of the article is about IQ instead.
  • Said part is based on a survey from Scotland, made in... 1932. That's right, 85 year old data from a fairly small and culturally homogeneous population.
  • On 11 year old kids.
  • The "massive differences" touted by the blog author... simply aren't that massive. Even at the very tail end of the chart, we have 277 boys for 203 girls, which is a bit over four boys for every three girls.
  • Inflated claims and abusive use of IQ as a measure for skill notwithstanding, this number does not even come close to explaining the truly massive gender disparities in software engineering.
From a more personal perspective, as a software engineer myself, I'm highly skeptical of the underlying claim that doing my job competently actually requires such extraordinary mental prowess.

Looking forward to your answer to Murdin's post! Maybe you'll have some grounds to demand answers from Askold and not look like a complete hypocrite!

But I doubt it.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: RavynousHunter on December 20, 2017, 12:22:28 am
Holy dogshit, this thread's over 4 months old.  And that is hilarious.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on December 20, 2017, 02:07:42 am
And the closer you look at Damore's claims the worse they look. He was able to keep up the "akshually it's about science" charade on exactly until people looked at what he based his rant on. And now he's gone straight into "women can't into computers and anyone who disagrees believes in unicorns" territory.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on December 20, 2017, 03:33:19 am
Damore: Actually, its about science. (said in as nasally a voice as possible)

Me: Shut up and enjoy your slushy, DaLESS!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on January 08, 2018, 09:15:11 pm
He's now suing Google for discriminating against "white, male conservatives."

Only in 20-fucking-18
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on January 09, 2018, 03:12:13 pm
OH that's a case he'll win.

Ironbite-if Lana's on the jury that is.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 09, 2018, 03:49:35 pm
I've read the lawsuit, and if what the plaintiffs are claiming is true, then I'd say they have a good case. Maybe you'd like to see some of the evidence.

Open discrimination against white men:

(https://i.imgur.com/dhwNJUo.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/mFUrV1J.png)

Making how-to guides on political violence:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCuf3hW0AAgxXK.jpg:large)

Suggesting Google try to prevent fired employees from getting jobs elsewhere:

(https://i.imgur.com/qRJtwuX.png)

Now, I don't think we should automatically assume that all of these claims are true, but if even some of them are...
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on January 09, 2018, 04:36:15 pm
Hey look!

Ironbite-my prediction came true!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 09, 2018, 04:40:41 pm
Hey look!

Ironbite-my prediction came true!

Anything to say about what I posted?
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on January 09, 2018, 05:23:48 pm
Nah because you can't discriminate against white men.

Ironbite-anything we get, we deserve.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on January 09, 2018, 05:52:03 pm
Oh my god! Lana found quotes that nobody cares about from people that nobody gives a shit about, and then blows it all out of proportion to create a chimeric fallacy: with the tale of a red herring, the body of a galloping gish, and the head of a false-equivalency. How will our side ever recover from this masterful zugzwang?

Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: ironbite on January 09, 2018, 06:20:29 pm
I don't know Queen.  Perhaps we will when we tell Lana to fuck off and go about our day?

Ironbite-STAY TUNED!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Lana Reverse on January 09, 2018, 07:00:20 pm
Nah because you can't discriminate against white men.

Ironbite-anything we get, we deserve.

Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to get a rise?

Oh my god! Lana found quotes that nobody cares about from people that nobody gives a shit about, and then blows it all out of proportion to create a chimeric fallacy: with the tale of a red herring, the body of a galloping gish, and the head of a false-equivalency. How will our side ever recover from this masterful zugzwang?



No need to be rude.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: niam2023 on January 09, 2018, 08:04:08 pm
This is still going? Why is this still going?

I don't really care what a bunch of nerds wrote down. IMO best way to "punch" a Nazi is elbow blows.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Tolpuddle Martyr on January 09, 2018, 11:38:30 pm
This is still going? Why is this still going?

Because somewhere there's a cracker that got triggered by a tumblirina.

And Lana will save them whether they want it or not!
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: Askold on January 10, 2018, 01:15:27 am
The thing is though, white cis guys have dominated business and politics in western countries for centuries. The few women who make it to the top are remembered because they were a rarity.

So yes, positive discrimination does mean that things get harder for white males. If you've taken 80% of the candy and and your three siblings got 20% and mom and dad decide to decide to re-divide the candy fairly then it does mean that one of the kids will have to give up a lot of their candy.
Title: Re: Google facing multiple lawsuits
Post by: The_Queen on January 12, 2018, 02:37:51 am
This is still going? Why is this still going?

Because somewhere there's a cracker that got triggered by a tumblirina.

And Lana will save them whether they want it or not!

That may be the best, most succinct explanation for this reverse racism garbage that I have seen

Bravissimo!