311–320 of 352 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My argument is that one's religious beliefs dictate what sort of organizations one will be a part of, just the same a person's physiological makeup will dictate his profession of choice.
Does that imply women are not discriminated against in comp-sci?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in his profession because their biology makes the inherently less interested in it?
I'd like you to more closely read the thrust of his memo. His main thrust is that Google should review their processes and see if they can't create a workplace that the average woman would like to work in (taking as inspiration the average personality tendencies of the average woman), without resorting to sledgehammer positive-discrimination policies that target women because they are women.
It's kind of offensive to be judged by this hypothetical "average X person" stereotype. It more or less implies it's their fault, that they are underrepresented because they want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is: the employee had concerns about working conditions at Google and how Google was pursuing it's goals. He even offered (what he believed) were useful suggestions. Other employees had similar concerns. Instead of answering his concerns, they fired him because they thought his suggestions were offensive (or rooted in offensive ideology).
> they thought his suggestions were offensive Not only were they offensive, they had no grounding in reality and made it impossible for many people there to work with or trust him.
the idea that females and males LIKE different things and its IN PART based on biology, is completely real and valid and not offensive in the slightest.
Google is in a no-win situation here. Fire the guy - get these kind of reactions about not listening to opposing voices. Not fire the guy - incendiary reactions from the general public. If Google had not fired the guy, a large majority of women (and men) in Google wouldn't want this guy (as brilliant as he may be) in their teams - that would create an unnecessarily hostile and uncomfortable workplace.
There's a whole set of NGOs out there that mint money milking such issues, in the name of "diversity" while doing little to address the real issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to scientists in the field, his theories are correct. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... If you read the memo, he is completely against discrimination, including positive discrimination.
I'd be wary of saying the psychologists (especially the EvoPsych dude) are "scientists in the field" because he was quoting biology and they are 100% not biologists. Dr Soh is really the only one qualified to comment here. Also the other three are ... privileged white dudes with track records of being anti-SJW/"snowflake", etc.
Please show me the other well informed people that claim the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you didn't actually read it, but here you are still spending time defending how its author really should be fired over it. Crazy.
I've read it and I still think it is justifiably a fire-able offense in that a) it's an open semi-public manifesto against a company policy that is inline with market expectations and b) addresses sensitive and controversial issues. Try writing this kind of a manifesto, and pin it in the lunchroom at your workplace and see what happens. Jerry Maguire got fired for a manifesto as well.
It was an internal memo in good civil form posted internally opening to an internal debate on a subject related to work conditions.
Despite Gizmodo's obvious attempt to frame it as such, it was not posted as a revolutionary manifesto.
It was public only when leaked by someone else. Notice how that person has not been fired.
> addresses sensitive and controversial issues.
So if a company makes a sensitive and controversial issue an internal policy, nobody should be allowed to question it? Really?
Are you still confident in your judgment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I know what he meant. No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone, I can see that not only you completely misunderstood my post, but also was offended by it. Not only that, you don't even seem to think that maybe you don't know, that there are different ways to voice and interpret messages. I'm not making an appeal to emotion, I'm explaining that perhaps you can't comprehend why people act in a certain manner…
>No, you don't. By your extremely aggressive tone I responded to your patronizing and condescending tone. If you want a civil debate, make an rational argument. When you write: "I've been there myself, it takes a lot of time and effort to understand the real impact of something that doesn't impact yourself." Isn't that the most condescending thing you could write to someone else? You're implying that because I don't…
Wait, I'm admitting my own fault at being able to see the world through other's perspectives, and that's condescending?
> Do you? Are you maybe wrong about how you see the world?
There's is no right or wrong way to see the world per se. There are just different ways. And yes, I'm usually wrong, I never claimed not to be.
> you're lecturing me but you cannot even fathom the idea that you may be completely wrong about this
Do you disagree that people see the world from different perspectives and it is often hard to understand each other's actions without trying to see the world from their perspective? That's my only point so far, nothing more.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
> Does a gay black woman know the experience of straight white man? Or a recent immigrant from China? Or a rural farmer? Or black executive from Wall Street?
No, they don't necessarily know, and that's my point.
> You're saying that a gay black woman cannot comprehend the experience of white, straight men so she shouldn't engage in policy debates that affect them? Are you seriously making that kind of an argument?
No, I'm not, and I'm actually quite surprised that you're even considering that I'm saying that. So far I fail to see anything in all my comments resembling that, but I might be wrong.
> So you're either making a meaningless pointless statement that implies nobody knows anybody's experience, or you're saying I don't have empathy or the ability to reason. Which is it?
It was actually neither. I was saying that when we don't understand someone else's actions, it is often because we haven't put enough work into seeing the world from their eyes.
But you actually proved that not only you can't understand other's experiences (or even acknowledge that people have different experiences and base their actions on different perspectives), you also don't seem to have empathy or the ability to reason.
The cap keeps fitting better and better. But given the downvotes on your posts, I think I'll call an end to this subthread. Have a nice day :)
Apparently Jordan Peterson will have an interview with the google memo guy on his youtube channel today. Just curious how this will go down, since youtube already took down Jordan's channel last week, before brining it back without explanation, fueling many conspiracy theories. Jordan is probably the first to layout a coherent logical, scientific argument against Identity Politics, that seems to have inspired the goo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be wary of saying the psychologists (especially the EvoPsych dude) are "scientists in the field" because he was quoting biology and they are 100% not biologists. Dr Soh is really the only one qualified to comment here. Also the other three are ... privileged white dudes with track records of being anti-SJW/"snowflake", etc.
Another one: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manif... Please show me the other well informed people that claim the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be wary of saying the psychologists (especially the EvoPsych dude) are "scientists in the field" because he was quoting biology and they are 100% not biologists. Dr Soh is really the only one qualified to comment here. Also the other three are ... privileged white dudes with track records of being anti-SJW/"snowflake", etc.
Another one: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manif... Please show me the other well informed people that claim the opposite.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/08/06/what-diff...