You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing asupposedlysexist 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:
You may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing asupposedlysexist 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
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.
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.)
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.
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?’)
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.
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.
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.
Is this the same person who had the problem with Rationalwiki or was that someone else?
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.
Hell, three of the four writers of the article you linked to are white men.
8 year olds dude.
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.
I guessYou may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing asupposedlysexist 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 youscience isI am sexist now.
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).
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.
I guessYou may or may not have heard about Google firing engineer James Damore for writing asupposedlysexist 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 youscience isI 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.
What links? What evidence?
I read the memo that you linked and I see no actual sources.
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.
Queenie, that's a sucker bet and you know it.
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.
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.
It doesn't help that the "scientific refutation" is little more than Social Darwinism.
How so?
So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?
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.
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.
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes.
Also, can we please talk about this without being rude or nasty?
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.
So, since this thread is dead and Lana isn't responding, anyone have any plans this weekend?
Also, can we please talk about this without being rude or nasty?
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.
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.
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.
b) Lana, that's not really an answer. You continue to ignore evidence that does not support your views.
Did you even read the counter written by an actual scientist?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Then why not take that up with the article's author? They have a comments section.
...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.
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?
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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".
aaaargl flargl fix your quote blocks
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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?
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.
Didn't you just say you ignored that whole Quinn drama?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?
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.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.
Didn't you just say you ignored that whole Quinn drama?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?
Because there were no mobs of violent extremists involved in that one, no siree.
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.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.
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!
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.
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!
So you're too stupid to actually realize why that "memo" should be an affront to your entire gender?
Ironbite-good to know.
Because fishing for and cherry picking data to support your conclusion is precisely the opposite of science. When you start with this statement.
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.
"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/)
Because fishing for and cherry picking data to support your conclusion is precisely the opposite of science. When you start with this statement.
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.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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.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.
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.
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!
Direct question: how much of the memo did you actually read?
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
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
Contrary to predictions from evolutionary theory, the magnitude of gender differences varied across cultures. (http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01642-012)
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)
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”?
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.
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:QuoteThe 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:QuoteIf 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.
What's the best possible interpretation Lana? He's concerned this will happen?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:QuoteThe 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:QuoteIf 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?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:QuoteThe 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:QuoteIf 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?
(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.
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.
Uh huh. (http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vio.2014.0022?journalCode=vio)
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!
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.
QuoteThey'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:QuoteContrary 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 PersonalityQuoteresearch 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.
The initial lawsuit was initiated when the company didn’t turn over some requested data on employee compensation during a September 2015 audit
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.QuoteThe 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.
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.
You could have very well looked it up, Lana.
You know, Google it.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah while pointing to their genders supposed genetic shortcomings, in a company memo.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.
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.
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.
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
[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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Okay, seriously. Why do you think Damore is sexist?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
A post you haven't actually answered except to compliment Murdin on his sciencyness.(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?QuoteThis 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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteThere 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
....what in the fuck is that supposed to be?
Ironbite-you did nothing to refute...anything.
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?
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.
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 CulturalMarxismJudaism 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.
You didn't say whether you ever answered her question.
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.
I have a long memoryYou 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.
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.
I said "long", not "perfect".
Then take a break from building strawmen. Nobody's forcing you to do it.
(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?QuoteThis 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.QuoteThe 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.QuoteThere 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.
- 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.
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.
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?
Lana, why don't you just accept that nobody here is liable to be "converted" to believing the google dudebro did nothing wrong.
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?
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.
Okay, seriously. What did this guy do to you?
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?
Direct question, why do you think I'm this idiot?
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.
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.
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.
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,"
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/)
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)
[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?
[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.
Speaking of annoyances, let me deal with some of Cloud's bullshit:
[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."
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.
...Isn't that exactly what you did?!
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.
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.
No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.
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.
...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.
QuoteNo, 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.
QuoteNo, 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....
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!
No, it's because I'm not angry at Murdin. Skybison, Ironbite, and Cloud have all been getting on my last nerve.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
God you're adorable.
Ironbite-you really are.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes...
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.
Yes, it looks bad... taken out of context. Here's the full context: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.QuoteAt 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.
(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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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)!
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.
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?
QuoteThere 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.
- 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.
Hey look!
Ironbite-my prediction came true!
Nah because you can't discriminate against white men.
Ironbite-anything we get, we deserve.
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?
This is still going? Why is this still going?
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!
u
Aaand JUSTICE: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said
Not the way he wanted it to go but definitely fair.
Yeah, Pichai and Wojcicki don't say anything like what Damore's rant did.
I think the problem is, is that computer science as a whole and tech as a whole has a reputation of being a very geeky male industry. And so if you look, not within the industry, but just as an educational pipeline, you see that we only have 20 percent of women graduating with computer science degrees, and that’s a problem in and of itself, because that means we don’t have enough people graduating who have those degrees. And you say, well, why is that? I think it has to do with these perceptions that the computer industry is, a geeky, not very interesting, not social industries, and it just couldn’t be further from the truth.
But I'm saying the representation matters. Right, so the way you solve this is by increasing the percentage of women in the tech industry. So, we need to make the environment more welcoming, we need to make the jobs more interesting.
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.
No need to be rude.
No need to be rude.
You're a poopyhead.
The opposite of respect is not rudeness, it is dishonesty. You are someone with a long history of rank dishonesty ranging from lying that your brother was trans to now making a sock puppet to dodge bans. If you do not respect us enough to be honest, we have no reason to respect you enough not to be rude.
And don't come back with "But you can't prove I'm dynamic paragon". We know it's you. You know we know it's you. We know that you know that we know it's you. When you do that you are merely further demonstrating your lack of respect for the rest of us.
My take away from all this was that discriminatory statements aren't protected speech in American workplaces hence the court found what everyone has been saying. That Damore was promoting discrimination.
One forumite will beg to differ but like Damore, they haven't a leg to stand on. Can we call this a wrap now?
Tol, you are being hopelessly naive. Like a certain cancerous cyst of a movement, this bullshit will spring up every now and then just when you'd forgotten about it in a desperate attempt to keep it relevant. Even though that bridge burned down a long fuckin time ago.
We have multiple fouls on the play.
First off...
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
Then there's
(https://i.imgur.com/rOL6Bks.jpg)
Also there's.
(https://i.imgur.com/GArQrtB.jpg)
Followed by a
(https://i.imgur.com/EDSanlx.jpg)
And finally there's
(https://i.imgur.com/gRu48Ko.jpg)
Ironbite-half the distance to the goal line, first down.
I say dead horses should lie unwhipped so the worms can feast in peace!My take away from all this was that discriminatory statements aren't protected speech in American workplaces hence the court found what everyone has been saying. That Damore was promoting discrimination.
One forumite will beg to differ but like Damore, they haven't a leg to stand on. Can we call this a wrap now?
There was no "court." There was a lawyer who advised the advised the NLRB. Also, I can't help but notice that the article doesn't single out any discriminatory statements Damore made.
And before you say game over, I'd like to have a one-on-one serious discussion with you regarding the legal and ideological side of this. No insults, no condescension, no personal attacks. What say you?Tol, you are being hopelessly naive. Like a certain cancerous cyst of a movement, this bullshit will spring up every now and then just when you'd forgotten about it in a desperate attempt to keep it relevant. Even though that bridge burned down a long fuckin time ago.
Hunter, it's going to be relevant as long as Damore's lawsuit remains ongoing, at the very least.
I say dead horses should lie unwhipped so the worms can feast in peace!My take away from all this was that discriminatory statements aren't protected speech in American workplaces hence the court found what everyone has been saying. That Damore was promoting discrimination.
One forumite will beg to differ but like Damore, they haven't a leg to stand on. Can we call this a wrap now?
There was no "court." There was a lawyer who advised the advised the NLRB. Also, I can't help but notice that the article doesn't single out any discriminatory statements Damore made.
And before you say game over, I'd like to have a one-on-one serious discussion with you regarding the legal and ideological side of this. No insults, no condescension, no personal attacks. What say you?Tol, you are being hopelessly naive. Like a certain cancerous cyst of a movement, this bullshit will spring up every now and then just when you'd forgotten about it in a desperate attempt to keep it relevant. Even though that bridge burned down a long fuckin time ago.
Hunter, it's going to be relevant as long as Damore's lawsuit remains ongoing, at the very least.
Why won't someone think of the worms? I ask you!
I don't like your feminist games
Don't like your alt-left themes
The personas you made me play
Made me a fool, no, I don't like you
I don't like your perfect posts
How you laugh when you boast
You said the identity was mine
Isn't cool, no, I don't like you (oh!)
But I got smarter, I got passionate in the nick of time
I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time
I've got a list of names and these posters are in red, underlined!
I check it once, then I check it twice, oh!
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me do
I don't like your advocating speech
They once offended me
You ask me for a piece of evidence
Locked me out and threw a party (what!?)
The world moves on, another day, another drama, drama
But not for me, not for me, all I think about is karma
And then the world moves on, but one thing's for sure (sure)
Maybe I got mine, but you'll all get yours
But I got intellectual, I got hot blooded in the nick of time (nick of time)
Honey, I rose up from the dead, I do it all the time (I really do do it all the time)
I've got a list of names and FQA is in red, underlined
I check it once, then I check it twice, oh!
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me do
I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me
I'll be the gator starring in your bad dreams
I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me
I'll be the redditor starring in your bad dreams
I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me
I'll be the channer starring in your bad dreams
I don't trust nobody and nobody trusts me
I'll be the Paragon starring in your bad dreams
(Ooh, look what you made me do)
(Look what you made me do)
(Look what you just made me do)
"I'm sorry, the old Ultimate Paragon can't come to the phone right now" (Ooh, look what you made me do)
"Why?" (Look what you made me do)
"Oh, 'cause he's dead!" (oh!)
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me do
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me
Ooh, look what you made me do
Look what you made me do
Look what you just made me do
Look what you just made me do
BRING BACK THE LIKE BUTTON!THE LIKE BUTTON IS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT IS WORTH! YOU CAN JUST SAY "I LIKED THAT" AS A REPLY TO A GREAT COMMENT LIKE OUR ANCESTORS DID!
Should I make another Taylor Swift song parody based on Lana not being Ultie? I've got another one in mind.Hell, you can even make it topical. A judge just found her riffs lack originality and creativity! (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/23/taylor-swift-lyrics-lack-originality-creativity/id=93956/)
(https://i.redditmedia.com/pludQNgPwuaGIkXaxGKLTg2B64SFIpdI6nQ-nJgVa4Y.jpg?w=632&s=e1295f195f444f3f2cdf7a7fa418d37b)
I would like to disprove this graph but as I see no citations or even any numbers I have no idea what this is based on other than good ol' asspull tactic.
Also: "poorer countries have stronger adherence to them."
Note the phrase, IF there is any validity to anything he says then why should we follow something that poor countries do and rich countries don't? Wasn't this supposed to be about what's economically smart to do? If this graph is correct it seems to implicate that the more people care about "manhood" the less there are resources unless I am reading it wrong, which is possible because THERE ARE NO FUCKING NUMBERS OR ANYTHING! Like most of his arguments he just brings up some claims that he never backs up.
Lee's lawsuit — filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court — alleges the company failed to to protect her, saying, "Google's bro-culture contributed to (Lee's) suffering frequent sexual harassment and gender discrimination, for which Google failed to take corrective action."
...
Lee claims that the "severe and pervasive" sexual harassment she experienced included daily abuse and egregious incidents. In addition to making lewd comments to her and ogling her "constantly," Lee's male co-workers spiked her drinks with whiskey and laughed about it; and shot Nerf balls and darts at her "almost every day," the suit alleges.
One male colleague sent her a text message asking if she wanted a "horizontal hug," while another showed up at her apartment with a bottle of liquor, offering to help her fix a problem with one of her devices, refusing to leave when she asked him to, she alleges.
At a holiday party, Lee "was slapped in the face by an intoxicated male co-worker for no apparent reason," according to the suit.
In January 2016, while working late one night, she was approaching her work space when she saw a male colleague whom she had never spoken with "on all fours, underneath her desk," she claims. When he saw her, the man "jumped up and shouted, 'You'll never know what I was doing!' " according to the suit.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/pludQNgPwuaGIkXaxGKLTg2B64SFIpdI6nQ-nJgVa4Y.jpg?w=632&s=e1295f195f444f3f2cdf7a7fa418d37b)
I would like to disprove this graph but as I see no citations or even any numbers I have no idea what this is based on other than good ol' asspull tactic.
Also: "poorer countries have stronger adherence to them."
Note the phrase, IF there is any validity to anything he says then why should we follow something that poor countries do and rich countries don't? Wasn't this supposed to be about what's economically smart to do? If this graph is correct it seems to implicate that the more people care about "manhood" the less there are resources unless I am reading it wrong, which is possible because THERE ARE NO FUCKING NUMBERS OR ANYTHING! Like most of his arguments he just brings up some claims that he never backs up.
It's also worth pointing out that nations that shirk traditional gender roles tend to be wealthier for that reason. For example, if your society thinks women shouldn't work, well you just took half the labor and half the intelligence out of your work force so that they can focus on being breedin' machines. So, assuming he even puts arbitrary numbers on that paint-JPEG that he calls a graph, he still confuses cause and effect (i.e. he posits that fewer economic resources necessitates traditional gender roles rather than less emphasis on gender roles creating more economic development).
What an asshole.
Meanwhile, in the real world-rather than wait for nature to assert it's natural boundaries of male / female job roles other google bros besides Damore have been allegedly making life hell for women who dare enter their playpen (https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/google-bro-culture-led-violence-sexual-harassment-female-engineer-lawsuit-alleges/) when nature doesn't do what they told it!QuoteLee's lawsuit — filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court — alleges the company failed to to protect her, saying, "Google's bro-culture contributed to (Lee's) suffering frequent sexual harassment and gender discrimination, for which Google failed to take corrective action."
...
Lee claims that the "severe and pervasive" sexual harassment she experienced included daily abuse and egregious incidents. In addition to making lewd comments to her and ogling her "constantly," Lee's male co-workers spiked her drinks with whiskey and laughed about it; and shot Nerf balls and darts at her "almost every day," the suit alleges.
One male colleague sent her a text message asking if she wanted a "horizontal hug," while another showed up at her apartment with a bottle of liquor, offering to help her fix a problem with one of her devices, refusing to leave when she asked him to, she alleges.
At a holiday party, Lee "was slapped in the face by an intoxicated male co-worker for no apparent reason," according to the suit.
In January 2016, while working late one night, she was approaching her work space when she saw a male colleague whom she had never spoken with "on all fours, underneath her desk," she claims. When he saw her, the man "jumped up and shouted, 'You'll never know what I was doing!' " according to the suit.
Still, if anything can be said for the little shits it's that they're cluey enough not to publicly wear their obnoxious shit on their sleeves in front of HR!
What's really telling is the different levels of evidence that Ultimate Llama requires depending on whether it supports their schtick.
I mean we go from I'm not prepared to rely on sworn depositions, let's see what happens at trial (time for some perry mason motherfucker to get them to crack) from I'm not prepared to discard reliance on documents which have been admittedly altered.
You fucking spoon.
Edit: Also why don't you ask that fucking prawn Damore for a source given it is his MS paint graph you fucking meat puppet.
Lemme get this straight, Damore claims that Google is actively oppressing it's entire workforce and offers up claims from Wikipedia and blogs dealing with evolutionary biology, zip to do with Google per se, and that gets the nod from you?
Then a single employee claims that she was oppressed by some shitty individuals within the organisation and this requires a higher standard of proof?
You know there's plenty more instances of large organisations sweeping instances of sexual misconduct under the rug than trying to stop their workforces waxing lyrical about evo devo wholesale!
TL:DR
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.
Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]
[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
Yeeesh.
Damore's argument against Google was that it had political bias and was authoritarian. It's right there in the introduction. (https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/)QuoteTL:DR
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.QuoteGoogle's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation
He then makes two specific claims, with references after musing about "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech, Personality differences" and "Men's higher drive for status" these are as follows:QuotePrograms, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]
The "evidence" for these citations is this mess:Quote[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
"To an extent", what? When did it happen, where? There's a vague claim about something happening "to an extent" and no details and another unsourced claim aping a citation.
So, again we have Damore's claim of mistreatment of an entire swathe of Google's staff based on...who the fuck knows, claiming who the fuck knows vs a specific claim that specific things happened to a specific person at specific times.
But Damore must be right because he has pages of citations from wikipedia, and also blogs for...evolutionary biology. Sounds legit!
You're presuming his 160 page brief has more substance than his 10 page screed becauase it has more...pages?
Again we have a person alleging a company wide conspiracy against white, male conservatives from a guy with a reputation for bringing spurious nothingburgers and unsourced MS paint splatters to the table vs a suit claiming some employees engaged in workplace bullying against another employee.
Welp, we know which one you'll back.
*more flags and whistles*
We have a foul on the play!
We have
(https://i.imgur.com/RCDz7rp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kR3VptX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EDSanlx.jpg)
Ironbite-40 yards and repeat 3rd down.
No.
Ironbite-you lost that privilege long ago.
No.
Ironbite-you lost that privilege long ago.
I just wish I had some idea of whatever the fuck that means in gridiron. I think Gridiron would be cool if they limited them to 18 players including subs so that you had to be on the offensive team and the defensive team
I think Lana's busy with her boyfriend, and will respond to this thread in a week or two when she thinks she has the perfect comeback.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AScDjjehxKgYeah, most of those would have been disqualified in real footy because they hit the post. Try to thread it through the goals boys, not the goalposts!
Not one of those was a drop kick. It's not fucking hard to punt it through. Besides which there's no cross bar you have to clear and you still get a point for missing.That's because in proper footy if you gently place the ball on the ground in preparation for your shot someone will take it off you.
C'mon you bounce the ball all the time, mainly because you can't catch it.
We could talk about how shit gridiron is but that would probably bring back the alt right taint
Is there any data on that ? Are gridorn players more likely to be concussed than rugby players? I suspect the helmets give them a false sense of security.Well, seeing as their head injuries go down 30% if they train without helmets it seems like there might be some truth to that: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/head-injuries-reduced-by-30-american-football-when-players-train-without-helmets-1536563
Players that train without helmets mould to a new tackling style designed to protect their head, which they carry on using during official matches – even with the safety blanket of a helmet.