31–40 of 404 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I quote Hitler in a debate about world war 2, am I normalizing the Holocaust?
It's a question of how you quote him. If you quote him to argue against him, especially if you do so in a reasonable, thoughtful way, you would be implying the initial statement or argument was reasoned, and thoughtful. "Normalization" is the process by which we treat ludicrous things as not ludicrous, but debatable.
Not an argument
there is no need for one. Google is a company, not a marketplace for people's prejudices. They have every right to shut discourse like this down, and they should because it is insulting to every women working at Google. The good thing about being a company instead of a townhall is that you don't need to accomodate adolescent men feeling insecure about their female coworkers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I quote Hitler in a debate about world war 2, am I normalizing the Holocaust?
It's a question of how you quote him. If you quote him to argue against him, especially if you do so in a reasonable, thoughtful way, you would be implying the initial statement or argument was reasoned, and thoughtful. "Normalization" is the process by which we treat ludicrous things as not ludicrous, but debatable.
Tear apart the ideas with friendly, well-reasoned arguments, yes! Ideas are fair game. Fight fire with fire, not gasoline.
It's just embarrassing at this point that an engineer at a well known company like Google even thinks like this. (The original author, not Yonatan.) Reading the original manifesto felt like something my 17-year-old self would write. Too clever and completely oblivious at the same time.
I understood the original manifesto's main argument to be against intentional, institutional discrimination (e.g. affirmative action) -- with many supporting points. I don't know what's shameful about that (unless you're referring to something else). He did seem to value gender equality in the sense that men and women should be valued and respected equally (unless I'm reading into it).
If you truly believe people are equal and deserving of equal treatment then you must see a society where white men are the most powerful, most privileged class, as a failure of society.
The author cannot claim to believe in equality and then go on to justify inequality with biological traits.
Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering. This guy gets it. It's a deep temptation to abstract engineering away from humanism, but the idea that code can solve problems is an immature understanding of software. People have the problems; people provide the solutions. Code is a tool & intermediary, and hardly essential to the act of problem-solving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there is no need for one. Google is a company, not a marketplace for people's prejudices. They have every right to shut discourse like this down, and they should because it is insulting to every women working at Google. The good thing about being a company instead of a townhall is that you don't need to accomodate adolescent men feeling insecure about their female coworkers.
I didn't see anything in the "manifesto" that seemed insulting to women... care to elaborate?
What an incredibly intellectually lazy way of attempting to deconstruct that manifesto this is! > 1.I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect "This is wrong, I don't have to tell you why" is a pitiful statement in and of itself, and perhaps more importantly, is not an argument. The a…
Ad-hominems aside... That's clearly not an ad hominem -- it's not even close to the definition! And, the rest of what you said is even more incorrect. Fortunately, no one is obligated to spend their time to refute your bullshit.
I agree wholeheartedly! However, others would like to. I'll be over there talking to them; please find your way to the nearest safe-space where kitten and puppy images await you.