561–570 of 1001 posts
Are White Men really booed during company meetings?
The person in question is talking about what they presented at a meeting, but I don't think it should be interpreted that the booing actually occurred during the meeting itself. In any case, it's not really the best look, but the suit is mischaracterizing it IMO.
Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech. I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female, yet are…
Diversity based on outward appearance is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous movements ever. We cannot spend decades trying to show that appearance is absolutely meaningless to talent, skills, and motivation, and then regress right back to it to show off "diversity". Also nobody ever seems to ask: diversity of what exactly? What's the target? Life experience? There is no qualitative score for that, nor is any s…
Jon Stewart gave a post-retirement interview in which he talked about this issue in the comedy world. He initially wrote off criticism of the lack of diversity in the writer's room for The Daily Show, since he always told people that he was interested in hiring more women and minorities. He eventually realized that the channels along which people came to the job was already selecting for white males, and that more diverse hiring required rethinking those channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I notice none of those options include "admit he was wrong and apologize". I'm sure he doesn't have to work for a top-tier tech company either.
It sounds like you're suggesting he both lies, and acts with disingenuity. I don't think it's reasonable to ask him to do that.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diversity based on outward appearance is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous movements ever. We cannot spend decades trying to show that appearance is absolutely meaningless to talent, skills, and motivation, and then regress right back to it to show off "diversity". Also nobody ever seems to ask: diversity of what exactly? What's the target? Life experience? There is no qualitative score for that, nor is any s…
I think you're missing the point of the "diversity movement". The point is that some classes, e.g. women and minorities face discrimination that's baked into the selection process, even when they eventual selectors are not showing a preference. You might try to hire based only on "merit, motivation, and results", but any measure of those things is going to be imperfect. If those measurements are themselves biased, th…
That has nothing to do with diversity based on appearance nor will those policies help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do think that men and women are biologically different and, it likely does contribute to a lack of interest in tech from women. The history of women in tech completely contradicts your belief. The lack of representation is a real problem, we can debate how to fix it, but to claim it doesn't exist is baseless and harmful. https://hackernoon.com/a-brief-history-of-women-in-computing...
It doesn't. At all. The issue is that it doesn't matter. Women might be less interested in tech, as in if you took 100 men and 100 women and measured their interest the men might be higher. That doesn't mean no women are interested in tech, or that those who are interested are less competent. I do think the idea of "less interested" is shallow and ignores every other explanation. For example, women are a majority in…
[1] https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-gra...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order, I think you can be considered right wing. Supporting pot legalization doesn't erase that.
"If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order" I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.
On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society?
Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down.
You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought.
And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is suggesting the distribution of certain qualities in men and women are different “repugnant crap”? There is ample evidence that men and women have behavioral differences. This exists across all mammals. I don’t know whether that makes the average man or average woman[1] better at any particular task, but it’s not an absurd hypothesis. Surely it’s worth reasoned consideration, not moral outrage at the very thoug…
Because he didn't just say that. You can't just pick and choose the part of the sentence you want to respond to. You have to accept the entire thing as a complete thought. e.g. It would be like me suggesting you wrote: "men and women are different 'repugnant crap'". It's accurate, but misrepresentative of what you meant. One is honest, and the other is dishonest.
I never really saw too much issue with what he wrote. It seemed a lot of people were mad at him for things he never said. It's been awhile since I read his document, but I remember expecting it to be so bad from all the uproar I was hearing, but after reading it I couldn't find much to be angry about. Can someone enlighten me - i'll admit, this may be a highly ignorant topic of mine.
I'm a former Googler (left before the memo) and I was upset by the memo because, in implying that the hiring bar was lower for women, it contained the thinly veiled corolloary that my female colleagues were less capable than my male colleagues. That did not match my experience at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans, even those who attend good schools, do not understand statistical claims. This leaves them susceptible to all kinds of flim flam, especially when they are invested in an idea.
> Americans, even those who attend good schools, do not understand statistical claims. I'm having some difficulty understanding your statement. Would you mind clarifying a few things? - Do you mean all Americans, or just some? - When you say "do not understand", what do you mean by that? - I'm unclear as to why you specifically mentioned Americans. Are you comparing them to some other group(s)? And if so, which one(s…
Be aware, 60% of Republicans belie e that the earth really is only 6,000 years old.
By not understanding he means that, that they don't understand that they don't understand that in distribution when traits are different on a average that that doesn't mean that in one group all individuals of one groups have stronger or weaker traits than individuals of the other group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. If the memo wasn't enough, him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1] Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn…
Never knew joe organ was right wing. I've been listening to his podcasts which seem pretty good.
Even what I just said, that he isn't, you should go look up, investigate, and see what YOU think.