Liberals don't ignore the evidence, liberals simply refuse to apply the evidence where it would create an ethical or moral problem, such as in hiring practices. That's the difference between denying science and abstaining from scientific racism/sexism.
Some conservatives actually take a similar approach to global warming. They don't deny the evidence but refuse to apply it where it would cause any economic changes or disruption. That's the difference between climate denialism and climate obstructionism.
A scientist can be wrong. Some "scientists" will tell you that AGW is a hoax or that modern humans suddenly popped into existence one day. Here is my response to that article:
There's a paragraph within the Rust Code of Conduct that states that it's unacceptable to exclude people, yet that very same paragraph also threatens to do just that against people deemed to be offenders! With some emphasis added:
We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone.... In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
That's right, tolerant people don't don't tolerate intolerance. Cry more for me, you delicate little snowflake.
Horseshit. One evoutionary psychology professor said that, in a column that makes clear that he sees on problem with scientific racism and sexism whatsoever. Of course you won't link to a source on that because you know it's horseshit, but I will:
Care to name them? Is there really a company that's OK with being publicly associated with this kind of bigotry? I could understand the company wanting to keep their employment of this asshat private...or the offers just being made up.
Care to link to such a user? I've seen the green Slashdot employee badge, the circular friend/foe indicators, and social media login badges, but no orange stars.
No, using science to argue that certain minority groups are less fit for some kinds of jobs and that therefore a company should put less effort into hiring said minorities is a "conservative" view. Shame conservatives only like science when they think it will rationalize their bigotry.
You've actually got it backwards. The null hypothesis in this case is "there is no gender-based discrimination." Since you cannot prove a negative (e.g. "reindeer can't fly"), it becomes the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof falls upon those trying to disprove it.
Bwahaha LOL you've outed yourself as an idiot and left your argument without a foundation! Not only for believing anti-scientific "can't prove a negative" nonsense, but because the very link you point to also points out what hogwash it is! Have another:
I'm sure Google would be happy to have less reactionary MRA neckbeards among their employees, it will reduce the chance of any future scandals like this one.
Ah, yes. In a company that is supposedly trying be a model of diversity and a leader in improving diversity in the tech sector, trying to discuss matters related to diversity is an indiscretion. Imagine if he had proposed that Google was not using the best algorithm for search or that perhaps they were not choosing optimal locations for their data centers.
Ugh, this horseshit argument, when will it die?
People are not search algorithms or data centres and we have ethical and moral issues to consider when discussing them. That's why we consider scientific racism and sexism to be wrong.
No, but if you put a cheap lock on your door and it gets picked, and then they slowly steal everything in your house over a long period of time, I'd say they are.
When he initially circulated the memo, "no one high up ever came to me and said, 'No, don't do this,' even though there were many people who looked at it," Damore said.
Nobody at Google told him this shit was wrong until it went public? That's messed up.
They're just a loud minority. A poll a few years back found that only 1/3rd of Slashdotters are climate conspiracy theorists, which is an alarming number, but certainly not a majority.
I'm not suggesting there's any dichotomy, but I think it's much more dangerous to hand-wave cases of disproportionate representation as a likely result of worker's job preferences. It's better to try to bring in underrepresented demographics and see if there is or could be any interest. I find it odd that you brought up construction as an example since that job is the stereotypical irredeemable cesspool of sexism. Maybe there would be more women in construction if it wasn't the industry known for being full of catcalling dudebros!
I certainly wouldn't write a letter to colleagues recommending that we hire less of some groups because they're statistically less likely to be optimal for biological reasons.
Neither would I, and that's not what the guy at Google did. (And yes, I'm one of the few people that actually read his entire essay!)
I think that a similar essay in a scientific context would not necessarily be a bigoted argument, but because the email was a recommendation on hiring practices, it definitely is.
He actually didn't use any citations of scientific publications, that may be where some quotes originated but no sources are shown.
I think we might completely agree. I agree that how we apply our scientific knowledge can have moral and ethical dimensions but I'm not saying that we should ignore science or suppress the truth itself if it contradicts "moral" or "ethical" social theory.
However, making the decision not to discriminate using that knowledge is sort of "ignoring" it for non-academic purposes, from a utilitarian perspective.
Also attempting to hire a workforce with a perfectly equal demographic distribution won't result in the most optimal set of workers - it's hardly possible to tell what distribution would - but I think it's vastly better than letting institutional biases operate unfettered. It's ethically a very good system. I certainly wouldn't write a letter to colleagues recommending that we hire less of some groups because they're statistically less likely to be optimal for biological reasons.
There's nothing wrong with those statements alone, that's science. When you use them to justify racism, such as recommending a change to hiring practices affected by racial bias, that's scientific racism. You can "believe the science" while abstaining from scientific racism.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see it. An orange round shape would mean you're on that user's foe list.
Yep, one pro-scientific-racism professor said he should get an A-, so he's right and should be re-hired and get a Nobel prize!
(Or not!)
Liberals don't ignore the evidence, liberals simply refuse to apply the evidence where it would create an ethical or moral problem, such as in hiring practices. That's the difference between denying science and abstaining from scientific racism/sexism.
Some conservatives actually take a similar approach to global warming. They don't deny the evidence but refuse to apply it where it would cause any economic changes or disruption. That's the difference between climate denialism and climate obstructionism.
A scientist can be wrong. Some "scientists" will tell you that AGW is a hoax or that modern humans suddenly popped into existence one day. Here is my response to that article:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
The difference is that manufacturing processes aren't people. The rules for people are different than the rules for things. HTH.
There's a paragraph within the Rust Code of Conduct that states that it's unacceptable to exclude people, yet that very same paragraph also threatens to do just that against people deemed to be offenders! With some emphasis added:
We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. ... In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
That's right, tolerant people don't don't tolerate intolerance. Cry more for me, you delicate little snowflake.
Horseshit. One evoutionary psychology professor said that, in a column that makes clear that he sees on problem with scientific racism and sexism whatsoever. Of course you won't link to a source on that because you know it's horseshit, but I will:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
There are more "scientists" out there who will tell you that AGW is a giant hoax.
Care to name them? Is there really a company that's OK with being publicly associated with this kind of bigotry? I could understand the company wanting to keep their employment of this asshat private...or the offers just being made up.
Care to link to such a user? I've seen the green Slashdot employee badge, the circular friend/foe indicators, and social media login badges, but no orange stars.
No, using science to argue that certain minority groups are less fit for some kinds of jobs and that therefore a company should put less effort into hiring said minorities is a "conservative" view. Shame conservatives only like science when they think it will rationalize their bigotry.
And he doesn't know that, so he's just speculating via bigoted statements.
Suck on this you nasty bigot:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Racism doesn't stop being racism if science supports it. Science will never legitimize your bigotry. Deal with it.
You've actually got it backwards. The null hypothesis in this case is "there is no gender-based discrimination." Since you cannot prove a negative (e.g. "reindeer can't fly"), it becomes the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof falls upon those trying to disprove it.
Bwahaha LOL you've outed yourself as an idiot and left your argument without a foundation! Not only for believing anti-scientific "can't prove a negative" nonsense, but because the very link you point to also points out what hogwash it is! Have another:
https://departments.bloomu.edu...
I'm sure Google would be happy to have less reactionary MRA neckbeards among their employees, it will reduce the chance of any future scandals like this one.
Ah, yes. In a company that is supposedly trying be a model of diversity and a leader in improving diversity in the tech sector, trying to discuss matters related to diversity is an indiscretion. Imagine if he had proposed that Google was not using the best algorithm for search or that perhaps they were not choosing optimal locations for their data centers.
Ugh, this horseshit argument, when will it die?
People are not search algorithms or data centres and we have ethical and moral issues to consider when discussing them. That's why we consider scientific racism and sexism to be wrong.
Yo dawg I heard you liked Slashdot discussions, so I linked the discussion to the discussion so you can not RTFA while you're not RTFAing!
No, but if you put a cheap lock on your door and it gets picked, and then they slowly steal everything in your house over a long period of time, I'd say they are.
When he initially circulated the memo, "no one high up ever came to me and said, 'No, don't do this,' even though there were many people who looked at it," Damore said.
Nobody at Google told him this shit was wrong until it went public? That's messed up.
They're just a loud minority. A poll a few years back found that only 1/3rd of Slashdotters are climate conspiracy theorists, which is an alarming number, but certainly not a majority.
I'm not suggesting there's any dichotomy, but I think it's much more dangerous to hand-wave cases of disproportionate representation as a likely result of worker's job preferences. It's better to try to bring in underrepresented demographics and see if there is or could be any interest. I find it odd that you brought up construction as an example since that job is the stereotypical irredeemable cesspool of sexism. Maybe there would be more women in construction if it wasn't the industry known for being full of catcalling dudebros!
I certainly wouldn't write a letter to colleagues recommending that we hire less of some groups because they're statistically less likely to be optimal for biological reasons.
Neither would I, and that's not what the guy at Google did. (And yes, I'm one of the few people that actually read his entire essay!)
Oh he sure did:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Close enough! See this post:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I think that a similar essay in a scientific context would not necessarily be a bigoted argument, but because the email was a recommendation on hiring practices, it definitely is.
He actually didn't use any citations of scientific publications, that may be where some quotes originated but no sources are shown.
I think we might completely agree. I agree that how we apply our scientific knowledge can have moral and ethical dimensions but I'm not saying that we should ignore science or suppress the truth itself if it contradicts "moral" or "ethical" social theory.
However, making the decision not to discriminate using that knowledge is sort of "ignoring" it for non-academic purposes, from a utilitarian perspective.
Also attempting to hire a workforce with a perfectly equal demographic distribution won't result in the most optimal set of workers - it's hardly possible to tell what distribution would - but I think it's vastly better than letting institutional biases operate unfettered. It's ethically a very good system. I certainly wouldn't write a letter to colleagues recommending that we hire less of some groups because they're statistically less likely to be optimal for biological reasons.
There's nothing wrong with those statements alone, that's science. When you use them to justify racism, such as recommending a change to hiring practices affected by racial bias, that's scientific racism. You can "believe the science" while abstaining from scientific racism.
This bothers me because I have good visual attention and motor control skills but poor memory and...well, look at my username...
Maybe the puzzle games would help to compensate for the FPS damage? :-P