Slashdot Mirror

One more time, why do the loonies that pass for conservatives these days insist on being reliant upon a bunch of us hated 'libtards' for a place from which to propagate their beliefs? They are perfectly free to set up their own rivals to Facebook, Google and Twitter

You would think so, but you haven't been deplatformed yet and then found that other platforms that were open to you are being harassed out of business by the same thought police.

You're O.K. with this bullshit because you aren't the one getting attacked yet for thought crimes. Don't be too smug though because things can change fast. Like for this guy: https://quillette.com/2018/07/...

De-platformed? You people have your own platforms, aren't Fox News and Sinclair media enough for you people? If you need more platforms you can set them up and compete, if the free market wants your message people will flock to your bullhorns by the millions. Why the hell do you right wing nuts also have to take over Facebook, Google and Twitter and turn them into right-wing bile spewing propaganda tools too? You won't be satisfied until everybody except yourselves has been silenced.

One more time, why do the loonies that pass for conservatives these days insist on being reliant upon a bunch of us hated 'libtards' for a place from which to propagate their beliefs? They are perfectly free to set up their own rivals to Facebook, Google and Twitter

You would think so, but you haven't been deplatformed yet and then found that other platforms that were open to you are being harassed out of business by the same thought police.

You're O.K. with this bullshit because you aren't the one getting attacked yet for thought crimes. Don't be too smug though because things can change fast. Like for this guy:
https://quillette.com/2018/07/...

The social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook say that they are platforms, and therefore they should not be held liable for awful things that people say on their platforms. They aren't curated information streams like a newspaper, where nothing is published without editorial oversight.

However, they have been indulging in quite a bit of curation. And it hasn't been even-handed. If they like you, you can literally get away with inciting violence; if they don't like you, they will strike you down or shadow-ban you for any reason or no reason.

There are numerous cases of conservatives being suspended or banned from social media over relatively mild stuff (for example, telling a journalist to "Learn to code") while liberals can make jokes about the President being assassinated, wish for conservative people's children to be raped, etc. The post "#MAGAkids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper" did not result in any punishment from Twitter. This tweet was accompanied with a cartoon picture of a man feeding a body into a woodchipper and bloody snow. By "#MAGAkids" he meant some high school students who were in the news at the time.

https://www.rt.com/usa/449368-disney-producer-threatens-maga-kids/

Keith Olbermann wrote on Twitter these words: "we should do our best to make sure the rest of his life is a living hell." Who was the target of his wrath? A man who had a permit to hunt turkeys who shot a turkey. Olbermann has a million followers and some of them went on to harass the hunter. Twitter did not punish Olbermann in any way. (Faced by a backlash of bad publicity, Olbermann made a follow-up tweet saying that his words were not intended as an actual threat.)

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03/27/keith-olbermann-urges-followers-make-hunters-life-living-hell-killing-rare-turkey/

I found an article that claims that a statistical analysis shows that this isn't just a few anecdotes, it's a trend.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-conservatives-more-harshly-than-liberals/

I tried to use Facebook Messenger to send a link to a satirical essay. It would not allow me to send it, and it gave a totally nonsense reason. I just tried it again just now and the same thing happened; here's the error:

It looks like you were misusing this feature by going too fast. You've been blocked from using it.

Learn more about blocks in the Help Center.
If you think this doesn't go against our Community Standards let us know.

I was "going too fast"? After not using Messenger for over 24 hours, I attempted to send a single URL, so that message is clearly nonsense. Obviously I was merely guilty of wrongthink. The essay makes the point that the USA is spending so much money that it's not possible to "soak the rich" to pay for it all, using a sort of reducto ad absurdium. Clearly someone who works for Facebook doesn't like this essay or doesn't like "Iowahawk". If you want to read this forbidden essay, here you go:

Iowahawk: Feed Your Family on 10 Billion a Day

Then there is the current controversy over Twitter apparently shadowbanning the movie Unplanned. So far Twitter has adamantly maintained that everything that looked like shadowbanning was just buggy code, but this seems really egregious. The Unplanned Twitter account at one point had more followers than Planned Parenthood, and then suddenly it had zero followers. Peopl

We can try providing educational opportunities, but if they outright refuse to engage there is nothing that could be done externally. Black poverty and criminality is self-inflicted wound and could only be cured by reforming black culture. To put it bluntly, when your culture sees education as "white culture to be opposed" there is no way you are going to be participating in knowledge-based economy.

https://quillette.com/2019/02/...

A world in which the far left's thought police watch everything we say and issue punishments? That's "being nice to each other"? I cannot understand why anyone would be on the SJW side. Even if you're far left. They'll attack you, too. Just ask Jamie Kilstein, who was so far left that he didn't just participate in SJW mobs, he led SJW mobs. Until the day the mobs turned on him.

Well, to be fair, they're very nice to you as long as you simply comply with about 50,000 rules that are changing daily. (Obama's 2012 position on marriage is HATEFUL!!!!)

Oh, and as long as you always say everything "correctly". Which, to be able to do, see above about the 50,000 rules that are changing daily.

A world in which the far left's thought police watch everything we say and issue punishments? That's "being nice to each other"? I cannot understand why anyone would be on the SJW side. Even if you're far left. They'll attack you, too. Just ask Jamie Kilstein, who was so far left that he didn't just participate in SJW mobs, he led SJW mobs. Until the day the mobs turned on him.

SJWs are a community that shares both an ideology of complete dissatisfaction with existing society due to its perceived "oppressive" nature and a desire to destroy that society because it's not perfect and SJWs consider it irredeemably depraved. I really think we're not bad and to destroy us would be a great crime, but keep cheering the SJWs because they're going to make us all nice.

Thanks for being the asshole who turns a tragedy into cheap political point-scoring. Moreover assuming your enemies are inhuman shitstains is a common affliction of Leftists, something Jamie Kilstein found out after he was run over by the very SJW mob he led.

Campaigns that mischaracterise issues and stigmatise opponents reduce the complex to the simplistic in ways that are fundamentally unhelpfulâ"they polarise society, inflame passions, and do little to fix the problems they identify and ostensibly seek to solve. You are fighting imaginary fascism with real fascism.

In my previous life, I was a self-righteous social justice crusader. I would use my mid-sized Twitter and Facebook platforms to signal my wokeness on topics such as LGBT rights, rape culture, and racial injustice. Many of the opinions I held then are still opinions that I hold today. But I now realize that my social-media hyperactivity was, in reality, doing more harm than good.

Within the world created by the various apps I used, I got plenty of shares and retweets. But this masked how ineffective I had become outside, in the real world. The only causes I was actually contributing to were the causes of mobbing and public shaming. Real change does not stem from these tactics. They only cause division, alienation, and bitterness.

How did I become that person? It happened because it was exhilarating. Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

Then one day, suddenly, I was accused of some of the very transgressions Iâ(TM)d called out in others. I was guilty, of course: Thereâ(TM)s no such thing as due process in this world. And once judgment has been rendered against you, the mob starts combing through your past, looking for similar transgressions that might have been missed at the time. I was now told that Iâ(TM)d been creating a toxic environment for years at my workplace; that Iâ(TM)d been making the space around me unsafe through microaggressions and macroaggressions alike.

I mobbed and shamed people for incidents that became front page news. But when they were vindicated or exonerated by some real-world investigation, it was treated as a footnote by my online community. If someone survives a social justice callout, it simply means that the mob has moved on to someone new. No one ever apologizes for a false accusation, and everyone has a selective memory regarding what theyâ(TM)ve done.

See also Jamie Kilstein talking the SJW mob turning on him on the Joe Rogan Experience. Kilstein had the same thing happen to him. Only, he wasn't just an SJW, but he was an SJW leader. He targeted dissenters for harassment and the mob followed his lead. He did real harm to people. But...eventually his own mob turned on him. Let's listen to his own words when he actually meets his former enemies for the first time in his life:

I met Knowles while I was getting makeup done. He was warm and hilarious. In my former life, I'd never have pictured a Republican laughing at anything except the plight of the poor. Then his producer came in. His Latino female producer. I made direct eye contact in case she wanted to blink out some S.O.S kidnap code. But nothing. Just another goddamn nice, and funny, conservative.

At one point, someone brought in a gift from a fan to present to Knowles. Was it a hat emblazoned with the words "Grab 'em by the pussy?" The gun used in the Parkland massacre? Nope. It was a tasteful painting of him and his wife on their wedding day. Then the producer walked out from behind a curtain, where she'd been pumping milk for their newborn baby. Turns out the party of family values occasionally attracts people who actually embrace family valu

In my previous life, I was a self-righteous social justice crusader. I would use my mid-sized Twitter and Facebook platforms to signal my wokeness on topics such as LGBT rights, rape culture, and racial injustice. Many of the opinions I held then are still opinions that I hold today. But I now realize that my social-media hyperactivity was, in reality, doing more harm than good.

Within the world created by the various apps I used, I got plenty of shares and retweets. But this masked how ineffective I had become outside, in the real world. The only causes I was actually contributing to were the causes of mobbing and public shaming. Real change does not stem from these tactics. They only cause division, alienation, and bitterness.

How did I become that person? It happened because it was exhilarating. Every time I would call someone racist or sexist, I would get a rush. That rush would then be reaffirmed and sustained by the stars, hearts, and thumbs-up that constitute the nickels and dimes of social media validation. The people giving me these stars, hearts, and thumbs-up were engaging in their own cynical game: A fear of being targeted by the mob induces us to signal publicly that we are part of it.

Then one day, suddenly, I was accused of some of the very transgressions Iâ(TM)d called out in others. I was guilty, of course: Thereâ(TM)s no such thing as due process in this world. And once judgment has been rendered against you, the mob starts combing through your past, looking for similar transgressions that might have been missed at the time. I was now told that Iâ(TM)d been creating a toxic environment for years at my workplace; that Iâ(TM)d been making the space around me unsafe through microaggressions and macroaggressions alike.

I mobbed and shamed people for incidents that became front page news. But when they were vindicated or exonerated by some real-world investigation, it was treated as a footnote by my online community. If someone survives a social justice callout, it simply means that the mob has moved on to someone new. No one ever apologizes for a false accusation, and everyone has a selective memory regarding what theyâ(TM)ve done.

See also Jamie Kilstein talking the SJW mob turning on him on the Joe Rogan Experience. Kilstein had the same thing happen to him. Only, he wasn't just an SJW, but he was an SJW leader. He targeted dissenters for harassment and the mob followed his lead. He did real harm to people. But...eventually his own mob turned on him. Let's listen to his own words when he actually meets his former enemies for the first time in his life:

I met Knowles while I was getting makeup done. He was warm and hilarious. In my former life, I'd never have pictured a Republican laughing at anything except the plight of the poor. Then his producer came in. His Latino female producer. I made direct eye contact in case she wanted to blink out some S.O.S kidnap code. But nothing. Just another goddamn nice, and funny, conservative.

At one point, someone brought in a gift from a fan to present to Knowles. Was it a hat emblazoned with the words "Grab 'em by the pussy?" The gun used in the Parkland massacre? Nope. It was a tasteful painting of him and his wife on their wedding day. Then the producer walked out from behind a curtain, where she'd been pumping milk for their newborn baby. Turns out the party of family values occasionally attracts people who actually embrace family valu

How a maths paper was suppressed by feminists because it was insufficiently gynocentrism.

https://quillette.com/2018/09/...

Not the original poster, but in the examples of people just purposefully trying to make mountains out of molehills and stir crap to the detriment of all in an open source project realm, would this suffice?

There are those out there with too much time on their hands that just want to either seize power through questionable means or watch the world burn. Using moral panic and fear of a mob as means to their ends.

There are common trends in the way these things start/are enforced, and while it may not be of great concern now patterns have been established towards the behavior. In the worst of cases the mob can refuse to stop even in the face of evidence appearing that no wrong doing was ever done.

It may be an overreaction, but it the fear seems to be that this will be the wedge used to allow those willing to use purposeful over-sensitivity and bad faith to accrue power.

Mob mentalities should be feared, but we shouldn't succumb to them or to actors acting in bad faith for their own gain.

This effort is nothing but another weapon for the culture war. The problem with the technology press is not that reporters don't understand technology. It's that reporters largely buy into a totalizing and evil ideology and push it relentlessly. Pairing reporters with programmers who share this same ideology will not improve the world. Instead, it will just allow the press to lie in a slightly more insidious way.

Look: the media is overwhelmingly leftist and introduces deliberate bias into almost all reporting, technology reporting included. You may think I'm just paranoid, but it's really true. See how almost all mainstream press outlets simply and flatly lies about Damore's essay? See how the press continually magnifies any problem a women might have anywhere into "tech hates women", which is the furthest thing from the truth? See how the press constantly pushes big tech companies to censor ever-more content in the name of preventing "harm"? All reporting these days approaches the world from a very specific angle and attributes all the incredible complexity of its problems to the same small number of identity-related problems that the left invented and with which the left is obsessed.

The stories this new outlet will publish will not be about examining in a dispassionate way the impact of technology on society. Instead, they will be the same stuff that Vox and its ilk push, high-quality tendentious sophistry designed to cloak an agenda in cherry-picked faces and unlikely theories. The leftist agenda amounts to the same deluded and radical cosmic egalitarianism that, in the 20th century, killed hundreds of millions of people. We're going to end up in the same place. This agenda is the closest thing to evil that actually exists.

By giving $20 million to the people pushing this agenda, Craig Newmark is insulating these people from the market forces that would otherwise direct society's attention toward productive, not evil, activities. These people will eventually lose, as the truth wins in the end. But by giving $20 million to communists in the press, Craig Newmark is prolonging an evil period in human history and prolonging a long, tiresome, and immiserating social struggle.

I was trying to check the validity of the quote, found this:

https://quillette.com/2018/03/...

Even at this relative high-point of Chavez’s popularity, Kucinich was the only U.S. Representative to publicly praise Chavez’s regime and condemn U.S. policy towards Venezuela specifically. All public declarations of support or solidarity with Venezuela or its rulers made by Kucinich were left without concurrent support from Sanders. In more recent months, Sanders has made his position on Venezuela clearer. On February 27th 2018, he co-sponsored a joint resolution of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations which officially “condemns” the “sham election” soon to be held by Venezuela’s government. This was six days before Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard sent the following tweet

You might not realize this, but Bernie Sanders never said that. It comes from an op-ed article linked on his website.

If you are aware of this but posting it anyway, thank you for intentionally making America a little worse.

The moral hierarchy of victimhood culture places entire groups of people at the top or bottom based on the whole groupâ(TM)s victimhood status. And while itâ(TM)s not always clear which groups qualify, Jonathan Haidt identifies seven groups that are currently treated as sacred: people of color, women, LGBTs, Latinos, Native Americans, people with disabilities, and Muslims. Under this schema even many minority groups, such as Evangelical Christians, fail to qualify, and any discrimination against them is ignored or celebrated.

Understanding Victim Culture

I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”

I could go on, there are so many stones unturned.

Is that a list of things people said that hurt your feelings, snowflake? Maybe mommy can homeschool you through college.

You've left out some of the real charms of the current era.

Profs claim scientific objectivity reinforces 'whiteness'
Professor Claims Math, Algebra And Geometry Promote ‘White Privilege’
The Appalling Protests at Evergreen State College
All-women's college asks profs not to call students 'women'
Professor notes men are taller than women on average, SJWs storm out angrily
Americans who practice yoga 'contribute to white supremacy', claims Michigan State University professor
Conservatives, Libertarians Are ‘on the Autistic Spectrum,’ Says Duke Professor
Victimhood Culture Only Getting Worse, Professor Warns
Professor: Small Chairs in Preschools Are Sexist, ‘Problematic,’ and ‘Disempowering’
Prof creates checklist for detecting white supremacy

Believing in meritocracy, promoting a "collegial" environment, and even deciding “to stay out of all of this ‘identity politics’” are all forms of tacit white supremacy, she claims.

She Carried A Garrotte!

I blogged yesterday about a mob trying to shut down Jordan B. Peterson and others at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, and wondered aloud, “Where are there police?!” Well, turns out one of the SJWs was arrested after breaking the glass . .

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”

I could go on, there are so many stones unturned.

... implies acceptance of blurting, including blurting out many kinds of "abuse" they wish to disallow. A better code of conduct would be much simpler: "don't be an asshole, learn to apologize, and grow a thicker skin".

So well researched and reasoned that the authors of the two papers he relies on the most have publicly stated that he didn't understand them, and that his conclusions are wrong.

Really? As far as I know they distanced themselves from Damore (nobody likes to be lynched in a witch hunt) and not from what he wrote. The article "The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond" features the comments of four scientists (including scientists cited by Damore) about the Google Memo. Here are some excerpts:

"The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. "
L. Jussim

"A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences[...]. Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. "
D. Schmitt

"[...]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."
G. Milller

"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."
D. Soh

It is interesting to note that while Schmitt (who is extensively cited in Damore's memo) seems a bit critical of Damore, he basically confirms what Damore says: he keeps saying that treating sexes as dichotomous is wrong, which is exactly what Damore said. In fact Schmitt writes: "treating people as dichotomous sexes is exactly what many affirmative action policies do" (that is what Damore was rebutting).

Many tried to misrepresent the Google Memo, including Wired, where you can read things like:

“It is unclear to me that this sex difference would play a role in success within the Google workplace (in particular, not being able to handle stresses of leadership in the workplace. That’s a huge stretch to me),” writes Schmitt. So, yes, that’s the researcher Damore cites disagreeing with Damore.

That seems a rebuttal of Damore's claim, by the same author he cited. Except for the fact that Damore never said something like: "women can't handle the stresses of leadership in the workplace". Nor he implied that. When you resort to straw man arguments, you probably lack a strong point.

And that means he's a terrible engineer, since he doesn't understand that "if X, then Y" doesn't also mean "Y, therefore X." That alone would be reason to fire him, because you sure as fark can't trust his code.

This is the part where you're wrong. He understood those hypothesis correctly, even evolutionary psychology professors who's work is directly in that field that he got the core of the idea correct among other facts. His belief is generally correct, that his evolutionary factors were effectively correct as well.

In other words, he was an engineer who saw something applied what he saw in his field, put it together, surprised a bunch of neurologists, and psychologists in "getting it pretty much right" and were just as astounded when google fired him for being right. Welcome to the absolute shitshow of the left, and hiring based on not ability, not skill, but with something you can make up, or are born with. Do you not understand why libertarians are abandoning any ties with the left, and saying "fuck it" and going right? And the left's response is "IT'S NOT US, IT'S U!"

Except actual experts in the field including non-white women whose doctoral dissertations were in this field say the exact opposite.

How about instead of a random blogpost we listen to four different scientists with expertise in this subject including a non-white woman whose doctoral dissertation is in this field. The memo was well written, well cited, backed by a majority of actual scientifically sound evidence as opposed to fraudulent garbage put out by gender studies departments, and he represented all of those fields incredibly well to the point that the people attacking him have had to constantly flat out lie to do so.

Here is an article, arguing that social norms such as "do not discriminate", ironically are discriminatory to people born with a different brain type that is incapable of following these norms, or something. Anyway, this would be a perfect example of that.

Academic philosophers have finally found a line they're willing to hold against the discipline's social justice contingent.

They hadn't reached the line yet when bloggers started brigading against conferences where only male invitees had accepted invitations.

They hadn't reached the line yet when critical theorists derided top programs as "hostile to women" while making excuses for covering up sexual harassment in purportedly more progressive departments.

They hadn't reached the line yet when the American Philosophical Association advised professors at the University of Colorado not to criticize feminist philosophy on campus or at off-campus department events. They hadn't reached the line yet when academic "advocates" cowed prominent philosophers into writing struggle-session apologies or including phrases like "I think I am a good ally" â" in papers about fundamental metaphysics.

But now Hypatia, a journal of feminist philosophy with explicitly activist goals, has seemingly disavowed a paper comparing claims about racial identity to claims about gender identity, and philosophers seem to have had enough.

http://quillette.com/2017/05/09/line-sand-academic-philosophy/

1.We have compelling reasons to accept the identity claims of transgender individuals.
Transracial identification is relevantly similar or analogous to transgender identification.
The reasons commonly given for not accepting transracial identification are either not compelling or not relevant.
From 1, 2, and 3, the balance of reasons compels us to accept the identity claims of transracial individuals.
If the balance of reasons compels us to accept something, we should accept it.
From 4 and 5, we should accept the identity claims of transracial individuals.

Trans-exclusionary positions are actually quite popular among the reigning generation of feminist philosophers, who often hew to Simone de Beauvoir's dictum that "gender is the social meaning of sex." Sally Haslanger, the most notorious feminist metaphysician and a leader of several online mobs in her own right, gives an account of gender that both explicitly analogizes it to race and seems to have trans-exclusionary implications. (Tuvel adapts her theory in one part of the paper.) One wonders why the purported opponents of power would attack a young assistant professor at a small school in Tennessee rather than the most prominent writer in the field and a fixture on the faculty at MIT. Tuvel's article does not just jeopardize someone's career, but entire industries.

The utter reasonableness of race self-identification highlights the insanity of gender self-identity and thus simultaneously destroys both the race industry and the gender industry. This is why the reaction was so strong, and why no argument may be permitted.

So let me get this straight.

Rod Vagg tweeted using his personal twitter account, on his own time, and referred to an article which appears to be quite worthy of discussion. The title The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech pretty-much describes what one finds in the article. It's about "speech codes", and the effects of limiting what people can say.

The article is completely and totally academic, with a position and supporting argument, written by a psychology professor!

And for tweeting a link to this article, he loses his position as Director of Engineering?

What shocks me the most is that only 60% of the TSC voted to not ask for his resignation/fire him. The vote should have been unanimous as "incident not relevant to the project".

Of course I haven't read the article or any article about this, just the summary.

why publically endorse a lightning-rod subject like MRA?

Read the actual article. It has nothing whatsoever to do with MRA.

Since this person sits on the steering committee, his "barefoot-and-pregnant" ideals would bias against female contributors.

You did not even read the supposed MRA article that he tweeted did you? Here skim through it. There is nothing in there about women or gender roles. The author Geoffrey Miller, an associate professor of psychology at the University of New Mexico, was making a case that speech codes can be unfairly discriminatory against people with mental health issues that make them less able to interact with people without those mental issues and are more likely to violate speech codes because of of their mental health problems. he concludes his article saying he will outline a legal strategy for removing speech codes that discriminate against those populations with mental health issues by way of ADA challenges.

There was nothing in there about keeping women barefoot and pregnant, no calls to ban abortion so not sure how everyone got to the point this was an MRA article or how you got that the person who linked this article is a bigot, racist, sexist who wants to keep women "barefoot-and-pregnant". But you had better stop, because every single time you start putting this crap out there that someone is an "*ist" because of an article they wrote or linked and then other people fact check the claim and find nothing of the sort, you lose credibility.

Now I will say this, I am not sure on the quality of the article because I am not a psychologist, but he did use a lot of Wikipedia citations. I would have liked to see maybe more primary or secondary sources and who knows, maybe he has them on reserve for his next article. But I am not sure a successful ADA complaint can be made on the backs of Wikipedia.

actually when allegations of harassment come up in a traditional project, that person is either fired or sent for some stupid HR training...

Except, as far as I can tell from the article, there weren't any "allegations of harassment": he didn't harass anybody. He tweeted a link to an article-- this article. He did not harass anybody.

The article isn't even one about "Men's rights advocacy" ("MRA")-- what he tweeted was a link to an article presenting the case that codes of conduct which suppress free speech discriminate against people with Asperger's syndrome, because these people have problems understanding what other people might thing would be offensive (the article was about "neurodiverse" people in general, but primarily focussed on Aspergers (which the article calls "Aspies").)

I somewhat wonder about the level of meta here. A person is accused of violating speech guidelines by tweeting a link to an article about speech guidelines?

actually when allegations of harassment come up in a traditional project, that person is either fired or sent for some stupid HR training...

Except, as far as I can tell from the article, there weren't any "allegations of harassment": he didn't harass anybody. He tweeted a link to an article-- this article. He did not harass anybody.

The article isn't even one about "Men's rights advocacy" ("MRA")-- what he tweeted was a link to an article presenting the case that codes of conduct which suppress free speech discriminate against people with Asperger's syndrome, because these people have problems understanding what other people might thing would be offensive (the article was about "neurodiverse" people in general, but primarily focussed on Aspergers (which the article calls "Aspies").)

I somewhat wonder about the level of meta here. A person is accused of violating speech guidelines by tweeting a link to an article about speech guidelines?

Back in the day, software projects used to be killed because of technical limitations. Now they are killed because someone objects to what someone else does in their spare time.

So let me get this straight.

Rod Vagg tweeted using his personal twitter account, on his own time, and referred to an article which appears to be quite worthy of discussion. The title The Neurodiversity Case for Free Speech pretty-much describes what one finds in the article. It's about "speech codes", and the effects of limiting what people can say.

The article is completely and totally academic, with a position and supporting argument, written by a psychology professor!

And for tweeting a link to this article, he loses his position as Director of Engineering?

You can get doxxed, threatened, and fired for having a political opinion on your own time if you get caught. Even if you don't publicly voice your opinion on the net, you can get fired for being caught on a security camera at a protest.

This political climate - the one we are living in right now - is insane.

Full disclosure, I posted in the comments section in the article you linked, but my comments are still being held in moderation because they are detected "spam" (this appears to happen any time you provide a lot of links for references with discus). In any event, you can see the thread here:

https://disqus.com/home/discus...

Regarding expert's opinions, the discussion at Quillete has been good and includes very good comments from David P Schmitt, who is one of the authors that James Damore quoted.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

There's also been a very good meta-analysis of studies being performed at Sean Stevens heterodox academy:

https://heterodoxacademy.org/2...

And a very good back and forth between Adam Grant and Scott Alexander here:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017...

1. And yet in all that time working with computers you still haven't figured out how to Preview and add line breaks??

2. Your link is broken -- it should be: james-damore-diversity-manifesto-science-logical-fallacy-2017-8
* http://www.businessinsider.com...

3. James has a Ph.D. in Biology. What are your degrees?

4. Four scientists agree with James' analysis.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

5. You are the one not thinking properly -- your logic is broken. **THINK** about what is _actually_ being said. I'm going to quote the last part from the link above because you _completely_ missed the paradox.

The memo didn't address this paradox directly, but I think it's implicit in the author's critique of Google's diversity programs. This dogma relies on two core assumptions:

* The human sexes and races have exactly the same minds, with precisely identical distributions of traits, aptitudes, interests, and motivations; therefore, any inequalities of outcome in hiring and promotion must be due to systemic sexism and racism;

* The human sexes and races have such radically different minds, backgrounds, perspectives, and insights, that companies must increase their demographic diversity in order to be competitive; any lack of demographic diversity must be due to short-sighted management that favors groupthink. The obvious problem is that these two core assumptions are diametrically opposed.

Let me explain. If different groups have minds that are precisely equivalent in every respect, then those minds are functionally interchangeable, and diversity would be irrelevant to corporate competitiveness. For example, take sex differences. The usual rationale for gender diversity in corporate teams is that a balanced, 50/50 sex ratio will keep a team from being dominated by either masculine or feminine styles of thinking, feeling, and communicating. Each sex will counter-balance the other's quirks. (That makes sense to me, by the way, and is one reason why evolutionary psychologists often value gender diversity in research teams.) But if there are no sex differences in these psychological quirks, counter-balancing would be irrelevant. A 100% female team would function exactly the same as a 50/50 team, which would function the same as a 100% male team. If men are no different from women, then the sex ratio in a team doesn't matter at any rational business level, and there is no reason to promote gender diversity as a competitive advantage.

Likewise, if the races are no different from each other, then the racial mix of a company can't rationally matter to the company's bottom line. The only reasons to value diversity would be at the levels of legal compliance with government regulations, public relations virtue-signalling, and deontological morality â" not practical effectiveness. Legal, PR, and moral reasons can be good reasons for companies to do things. But corporate diversity was never justified to shareholders as a way to avoid lawsuits, PR blowback, or moral shame; it was justified as a competitive business necessity.

So, if the sexes and races don't differ at all, and if psychological interchangeability is true, then there's no practical business case for diversity.

On the other hand, if demographic diversity gives a company any competitive advantages, it must be because there are important sex differences and race differences in how human minds work and interact. For example, psychological variety must promote better decision-making within teams, projects, and divisions. Yet if minds differ across sexes and races enough to justify diversity as an instrumental business goal, then they must differ enough in some specific skills, interests, and motivations that hiring and promotion will sometimes produce unequal outcomes in some company rol

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0... there.

Here is 4 professors in biology that basically say James Damore was correct, but sure you are the expert. Funny the strongest argument comes from a female PhD in neuroscience. But sure MBAs know more than them and you do too.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

He had completed a couple years of PhD studies in systems biology in Harvard. So that's too little relevant qualification to have an opinion about the topic, as far as you are concerned? Makes him a "rank amateur"?

These scientists agreed with him and thought his citations and references were OK.

"White guys like you"?? Excuse me? How is that fucking relevant?
Okay, now everyone can see where you're coming from, and it's probably BLM SJW headquarters.

I guess none of these experts mean anything to you either, because they're white. Even though one is a woman.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Well, these four scientists think the memo is substantively correct. One even said that it qualifies as "A-" masters level work in the relevant field.

Saying that women are, on average, interested in different things is the simple truth. The truth isn't sexist.

Debra W. Soh is an expert in neuroscience. (PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.) She wrote the following in defense of Damore:

"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."

The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Science would appear to disagree with you, but maybe you didn't read the memo with the citations:

https://diversitymemo-static.s...

Again, talking about, talking about it. Actually now you are: talking about, talking about, talking about it. You have entered that recursive loop that we see in the media where they interview person 1 about what person 0 said, and then interview person 2 about what person 1 said, never mentioning exactly what person 0 said.

It is well sourced. The guy did the work. In fact some of the sourced scientists have given rebuttals. Again with the fingers in the ears and screaming "LALALALALA." Again, if you are looking to convince yourself you are doing a good job. What is obvious to everyone else is that you are scared to even converse about the merits, wait scratch that, the basic contents of the document. You will cast aspersions, you will speak about speaking about them, you will create false impressions about them, but to actually look at the peer reviewed science behind what he said? No. You just say the science is wrong.

Here is a link to 4 of the scientists that he linked to in his paper. They break down what he said. They are in full defense mode for their careers here. You should at least take a look at this, even if you haven't read what he originally wrote.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Here are 4 of the scientists he quoted talking about what he wrote. Good reading if you aren't an ignorant bigot.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Also important to remember that he was a computer scientist addressing the "science" behind an issue outside his area of expertise.

Fair enough. Here's Dr Jordan Peterson's interview with the guy https://youtu.be/SEDuVF7kiPU . tl;dw: he got the science right.

Here's four other actual scientists commenting on the memo: http://quillette.com/2017/08/0... tl;dr: he got the science right, x4

I find it ironic, that conservatives, that have ranted and raved against any sort of labor protections and the NLRB, seem to be rejoicing at pushing a NLRB complaint.

If this is not an example of conservative white male privilege, I don't know what is.

I find it ironic that liberals rejoice when the science concerning global warming is settled, but rant and rave when science that doesn't fit their narrative is presented.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

If that's not an example of hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

You uh... didn't actually read his letter, did you?

Because he's got a Ph.D in biology. ... and worked as a scientist at... MIT.

And his memo is also backed by four different scientists who reviewed it.

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Goddamn science and their facts backed by peer-reviewed research!

For your information, ducks wear their feathers on the outside of their asses. (But who'd expect someone who's probably never seen Duckie outside of his bath to know that.) Also, genius, here's a link to a piece written about this by four actual professionals in the field with decades of research experience and publications. Maybe you can explain why they're full of crap, too. Please list your citations. http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...

Four seconds later...
Weak dude. No wonder your mind cannot handle advanced concepts like "biological differences are different".

Yeah, but only one of those "scientists" was a woman, who is obviously a tool of The Patriarch, therefore it's obviously all invalid!

Four seconds later...

That's actually a reasonably good link. Lot's of interesting ideas from scientists with relevant expertise. But perhaps also omitting some fairly obvious criticisms of the original manifesto.

For example, the original manifesto implies that women avoid careers in computer programming because they are more susceptible to stress and anxiety (more "neuroticism"). Well, in Botswana and Indonesia men actually report more stress and anxiety than women according to one study on neuroticism sex differences. But even if women were universally more susceptible to stress and anxiety as a matter of biology, is a career in nursing (people actually dying on a regular basis) really less stressful than a career in computer programming? Or what about careers in social work (suicide and child abuse) or even elementary school teaching (30 screaming 5 year olds)?

Four seconds later...

Weak dude. No wonder your mind cannot handle advanced concepts like "biological differences are different".

http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...