11–19 of 19 posts
Took me about two minutes to find out who might be manufacturing this outrage: https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894973242984759297
That's funny although news outlets can have writers and reporters with different opinions
It's funny, reading this column, I can't help thinking of this as a new form of McCarthyism, where if you were seen to be a communist sympathiser, you would be fired and prevented from finding another job in the industry.
You may also find funny this extra bit of irony not covered in the article. NPR tweeted that some women at Google were so upset by the memo that they stayed home from work. Well, at least they didn't play to their stereotype of being overly emotional.
I definitely see the humour, but this is necessarily not just a women's thing.
When we as a society increasingly give the power to the offended to decide what is OK and not OK to say, you should not be surprised to find that on average people will be more careful about what and how they communicate, to the point of people imposing self censorship on them selves.
The effect of this on large scale is that because in general people are now exposed to less "hard" speech or statements, they also become mentally less "rugged". Their minds are simply not trained to handle normal discourse or disagreement any more.
And therefore what passes as normal conversation in the rest of the world, is now a fireable offence in Silicon Valley.
And thus people in SV will self censor even more. And become even more sensitive. Rinse and repeat. This kind of stuff is just not healthy. How are you going to we break the cycle?
This.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony being that the persecutors (liberals) today were the very victims then.
The true irony is that there is no actual persecution.
"To me, if you read it and are completely outraged or uniformly in favor, then you are part of the problem. If you can read anyone's opinion, spread out over 10 pages, and find nothing with which you agree, then you're almost certainly not thinking. Similarly, if you can read this guy's entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either." This.
(Ah right, a Barnum statement.)
"To me, if you read it and are completely outraged or uniformly in favor, then you are part of the problem. If you can read anyone's opinion, spread out over 10 pages, and find nothing with which you agree, then you're almost certainly not thinking. Similarly, if you can read this guy's entire memo and find yourself blindly nodding, then you probably aren't using your brain either." This.
Come on, that's a "we have something for everyone" demagogue trick that is despicable on its own due to its false premise. (Ah right, a Barnum statement.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may also find funny this extra bit of irony not covered in the article. NPR tweeted that some women at Google were so upset by the memo that they stayed home from work. Well, at least they didn't play to their stereotype of being overly emotional.
> NPR tweeted that some women at Google were so upset by the memo that they stayed home from work. Well, at least they didn't play to their stereotype of being overly emotional. I definitely see the humour, but this is necessarily not just a women's thing. When we as a society increasingly give the power to the offended to decide what is OK and not OK to say, you should not be surprised to find that on average people…
This episode is going to be a shining example when the conversations return to media bias. CNN, for example, referred to this as a "sexist manifesto" and an "anti-diversity manifesto." Meanwhile the actual memo mostly suggested that if Google wanted to make the company more appealing to women they should offer more part time positions because women tend to choose a different work life balance than men, something that is statistically provable. You could hardly be more benign. I think the right-wing phrase "hate facts" is going to start leaking into the vernacular.