Here's my suspicion, though I doubt most of the left would cop to the hypocrisy:
1) if #goolag had special diversity meetings that told hiring managers "if you have too many blacks on your team, we expect you to only interview non-blacks until the ratio is consistent with local populations", you'd freak out.
2) if #goolag had special diversity meetings that told hiring managers "if you have too many whites on your team, we expect you to only interview non-whites until the ratio is consistent with local populations", you'd consider it social justice.
The reason why Damore is the subject of such defamation, slander, and derision is simply because he is a white male. Nobody would have dared treat a PoC or a woman like they've treated Damore in the press.
TL;DR * Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety . * This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. * The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
* Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
* Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why wedon't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. * Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
So, now you doubt that there was a diversity meeting that #Goolag didn't record, in contravention of its typical modus operandi?
Exactly what part do you doubt - that it was recorded, or that the diversity meeting happened?
Or are you doubtful that the diversity meeting contained any sort of implicit or explicit instructions to judge candidates based on race and gender?
Let's stipulate for a moment that: - the meeting did happen - that it was not recorded
Would it make a difference to you if they only implicitly gave instructions to judge candidates based on race and gender? Would it only be whistle-blowing if they said, "we need to improve our male to female ratio, so we expect any team that still has an overrepresentation of men to only screen for female candidates"?
tl;dr - is there anything #Goolag could have said in the secret meeting that would rise to the level of recommending illegal hiring practices for you?
“A month and a half ago I went to one of our diversity summits, all of it unrecorded and super secret, and they told me a lot of things that I thought were just not right,” Damore continued. “They were telling us about a lot of these potentially illegal practices that they’d been doing in order to increase diversity Basically treating people differently based on their race or gender.”
“So you mean racism,” asked Peterson.
“Yeah, basically,” Damore confirmed. “Most meetings at Google are recorded, anyone at Google can watch it, we’re trying to be really open about everything, except for this. They don’t want any paper trail for any of these things because I think it’s illegal.”
Damore elaborated to Peterson that there’s “a lot of ways in which they pressure people to ‘increase the diversity’ of their team, and there’s no way to do that besides actually choosing someone based on their race or gender.”
Now, if you doubt those quotes, please, feel free to watch the whole video:)
Doesn't matter because feelz:). If a man can be a woman, then BLM can be Nazis:)
In any case, the point here is *regardless* of your POV, if you start policing it, and set the expectation that you will police it, people will hold you accountable when you don't police it.
Great for grabbing headlines, massive headache for the corp lawyers who have to defend against lawsuits.
Sure it'll make a difference - if they selectively enforce their ToS, and leave something up that is "harmful", they're liable. They already set the precedent that they remove "harmful" content, so end users can now hold them accountable when they miss, or refuse to address, some BLM or NeoNazi site.
It's like selectively removing someone who shares Depeche Mode 30 second clips, but then not removing someone who shares Duran Duran 30 second clips - once they get into the business of monitoring and removing fair use distribution of content under pressure from bands or labels, they're in that business.
It's anthropogenic vulcanism! Humans drive volcanic activity, and too many tourists stepping on Yellowstone is going to cause "The Big One".
This goes along with anthropogenic earthquakes, anthropogenic sunspots, and anthropogenic cosmic rays, which can all be correlated to human activity of some sort.
We are not simply insignificant bags of mostly water on a tiny rock at the edge of an insignificant galaxy in the middle of an uncaring and massive universe, we are the ultimate drivers of the cosmos!!/sarc
The point holds whether or not you call it "virtue signaling" or "calling out perceived racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, islamophobes, christianphobes, agoraphobes, arachnophobes, feminists, menninists, nationalists, communists, socialists".
Whether you're pandering to the left, right, up or down wing, once you decide you're going to monitor and respond to non-illegal activity you might be in the network path for, you're setting a precedent that you simply can't scale to.
It would be like UPS refusing to ship nazi flags, or gay porn, because reasons. In either case, going from neutrality to bias opens up a can of worms.
This kind of short-term virtue signaling on the part of a corporation is going to have long-term consequences, when people use this precedent to make them responsible for every shitlord post ever made on anything they're connected to.
Next thing you know, they'll be coming after GoDaddy for comments on articles, and naughty memes.
Frankly, though, I see this as a win-win for #Goolag:
Damore loses, then #Goolag can defend against SJW discrimination lawsuits by saying, "Look, we actively punish those bad, bad misogynists!"
Damore wins, then #Goolag can defend against SJW discrimination lawsuits by saying, "Look, this guy proved that disparity in representation is caused by free choices, not misogyny!"
Actually, the problem is that "people who see themselves as wanting a fair playing field no matter who is in power are appalled at the authoritarian nature of #goolag's ideological filter bubble". I don't care if it's hard core xtians telling people they can't live in sin, or SJWs telling people they can't think sinful thoughts, they're both nuts, and it's no way to run a railroad.
Your assertion that he did any activism at all is silly - he posted on an internal board that solicited responses, and someone else who was offended by it leaked it to gizmodo. The company should fire the leaker, not the whistleblower.
If Google is discriminating on people based on their race or sex in their hiring process, and having secret unrecorded meetings when discussing their illegal hiring practices, then yeah, it's whistleblowing.
TimothyHollins made a clear claim "when there is no strong economic incentive and no social norms then XYZ". He did not make a claim about misogynistic nor about freedoms for women. He made a claim about economic incentives and social norms.
You are correct. It was the original Damore memo that made the claims about women with more freedom making more varied choices from men. I intended to defend Damore's position, not TimothyHollins.
That's going to lead into data-mining pitfalls where you can always figure out some kind of pattern that fits your beliefs.
A fair point about any social science work, to be sure. Like, if you say, a priori, decided that men and women were the same and any differences in job application rates was due to patriarchy:)
If that's the case, then you're being maliciously slanderous. You're literally lying about what he said, and defaming Damore's intentions and character by attributing thoughts and feelings to him that he simply does not have.
On the other hand, if you're just stupid, or let's say ignorant, then maybe you're coming at this with good intentions, and failing without malice:)
Nobody argued with him - they vilified him in the press, lied about what he said, and then fired him.
Show me a single moment where anyone from #Goolag leadership actually addressed his arguments, rather than simply paraphrasing them into the most unflattering light.
And again, race != sex. Race is an illusion with no biological basis. Sex is real, tangible, quantifiable, and measurable. It's like you're criticizing Buddhism because it's a religion like Islam, and Islam kills homosexuals. The two aren't the same thing, and your continued attempt to smear Damore with racism by association is both hurtful and unfair.
Of course on average they have more sources of stress - they're more sensitive to stress on average.
Things that a man might not even notice (a social dig in a meeting, a backhanded compliment from a colleague, or even the hum of conversation in a shared space), a woman may be more sensitive to. So in the exact same environment, women will have more sources of stress.
To automatically assume that there are sex-specific sources of stress (say, dirty toilets only in the women's room, or a dress code that insists on full face coverings), is silly.
As for "admitting" versus "keeping inside", exactly how do you read a man's mind to tell that they're "not admitting" something? And why do you think that if men behaved more like women and just "admitted" things, that it would be of any benefit to men?
Men and women have fairly distinct coping mechanisms - I wouldn't assume that one is better than the other, they're just different.
Are you really saying that economic factors are *better* in Russia, and *worse* in Sweden?
The US is certainly not perfect, but if you wanted to help women's rights, it's pretty low on the list after all sharia compliant countries, and other openly misogynistic regimes.
"I have visited a fair number of countries this year in the course of filming a documentary series on the history of women. Some could hardly be described as bastions of tolerance and equality. But only in Russia dis I witness sexism bolstered by state-sanctioned menace and contempt."
Maybe the highest proportion of women in top government roles is due to a lack of choices they have.
There's nothing controversial there. Of course men and women differ in part due to biology. No, really, they do.
Of course these differences *may* explain things. Not "they do explain" or "they must explain" but "they *MAY* explain".
To anyone who can read, he believes that men and women differ *IN PART* due to biology (implying that the differ also because of other external factors like socialization), and that this *MAY* explain observed statistical differences.
Why is it that people on the left literally quote him, but don't READ him. You cannot *possibly* defend the assertion that women's biology contributes NOTHING at all to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership. It's like saying CO2 has zero influence on the climate - it's preposterous.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, pics or it didn't happen.
Nothing he wrote says you need a penis to write proper code. Not a single word, not a single sentence, not a single paragraph.
pics or it didn't happen.
Wired didn't show a single thing that he cited out of context.
Missing some details. What is "real" to you?
At what point would you agree with him that illegal HR practices were implicitly or explicitly recommended?
He gave you 10 pages of notes :)
Here's my suspicion, though I doubt most of the left would cop to the hypocrisy:
1) if #goolag had special diversity meetings that told hiring managers "if you have too many blacks on your team, we expect you to only interview non-blacks until the ratio is consistent with local populations", you'd freak out.
2) if #goolag had special diversity meetings that told hiring managers "if you have too many whites on your team, we expect you to only interview non-whites until the ratio is consistent with local populations", you'd consider it social justice.
The reason why Damore is the subject of such defamation, slander, and derision is simply because he is a white male. Nobody would have dared treat a PoC or a woman like they've treated Damore in the press.
TL;DR
* Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety .
* This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
* The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
* Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
* Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
* Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why wedon't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
* Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
So, now you doubt that there was a diversity meeting that #Goolag didn't record, in contravention of its typical modus operandi?
Exactly what part do you doubt - that it was recorded, or that the diversity meeting happened?
Or are you doubtful that the diversity meeting contained any sort of implicit or explicit instructions to judge candidates based on race and gender?
Let's stipulate for a moment that:
- the meeting did happen
- that it was not recorded
Would it make a difference to you if they only implicitly gave instructions to judge candidates based on race and gender? Would it only be whistle-blowing if they said, "we need to improve our male to female ratio, so we expect any team that still has an overrepresentation of men to only screen for female candidates"?
tl;dr - is there anything #Goolag could have said in the secret meeting that would rise to the level of recommending illegal hiring practices for you?
Please, quote a single thing he cites out of context.
I don't think you've even read his memo :)
And I'm not surprised that you're willing to comment so authoritatively on it, despite your ignorance :)
Yeah, still think you're projecting here. Damore goes to meeting. #Goolag solicits feedback. Damore gives feedback in 10 pages.
That's exactly what happened.
Is it the length you object to? The clear citations for assertions? The rational argument? The polite and diplomatic tone?
Or maybe you've re-written the entire 10 page analysis, replacing the parts you don't like with "girls have germs"? :)
Actually, I highly doubt you've read it...can you quote the part where he actually recommends non-discriminatory practices for increasing diversity?
So you have a doubt that Damore explicitly talks about the secret diversity hiring meeting?
You think perhaps, I'm just making up that part? :)
Here, http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
Now, if you doubt those quotes, please, feel free to watch the whole video :)
Doesn't matter because feelz :). If a man can be a woman, then BLM can be Nazis :)
In any case, the point here is *regardless* of your POV, if you start policing it, and set the expectation that you will police it, people will hold you accountable when you don't police it.
Great for grabbing headlines, massive headache for the corp lawyers who have to defend against lawsuits.
Sure it'll make a difference - if they selectively enforce their ToS, and leave something up that is "harmful", they're liable. They already set the precedent that they remove "harmful" content, so end users can now hold them accountable when they miss, or refuse to address, some BLM or NeoNazi site.
It's like selectively removing someone who shares Depeche Mode 30 second clips, but then not removing someone who shares Duran Duran 30 second clips - once they get into the business of monitoring and removing fair use distribution of content under pressure from bands or labels, they're in that business.
It's anthropogenic vulcanism! Humans drive volcanic activity, and too many tourists stepping on Yellowstone is going to cause "The Big One".
This goes along with anthropogenic earthquakes, anthropogenic sunspots, and anthropogenic cosmic rays, which can all be correlated to human activity of some sort.
We are not simply insignificant bags of mostly water on a tiny rock at the edge of an insignificant galaxy in the middle of an uncaring and massive universe, we are the ultimate drivers of the cosmos!! /sarc
The point holds whether or not you call it "virtue signaling" or "calling out perceived racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, islamophobes, christianphobes, agoraphobes, arachnophobes, feminists, menninists, nationalists, communists, socialists".
Whether you're pandering to the left, right, up or down wing, once you decide you're going to monitor and respond to non-illegal activity you might be in the network path for, you're setting a precedent that you simply can't scale to.
It would be like UPS refusing to ship nazi flags, or gay porn, because reasons. In either case, going from neutrality to bias opens up a can of worms.
...every bit of content they are part of serving.
This kind of short-term virtue signaling on the part of a corporation is going to have long-term consequences, when people use this precedent to make them responsible for every shitlord post ever made on anything they're connected to.
Next thing you know, they'll be coming after GoDaddy for comments on articles, and naughty memes.
You go to a meeting. Your company asks for feedback. You give feedback.
This is activism now?
I thought sewing pussyhats and smashing up Berkeley when you're butthurt about what someone might say that hurts your feelz is activism :)
I did tell you the important bit - Damore explicitly talks about the secret diversity hiring meeting.
You quoted the important bit right back to me :)
Discriminating against applicants because of race or sex is illegal. Full stop. Doesn't matter if you have the meeting in private or public.
He responded, intelligently, to a group that actively solicited his feedback.
That's not activism, that's called "sharing the opinion you were asked for".
Damore explicitly talks about the secret diversity hiring meeting here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Frankly, though, I see this as a win-win for #Goolag:
Damore loses, then #Goolag can defend against SJW discrimination lawsuits by saying, "Look, we actively punish those bad, bad misogynists!"
Damore wins, then #Goolag can defend against SJW discrimination lawsuits by saying, "Look, this guy proved that disparity in representation is caused by free choices, not misogyny!"
Actually, the problem is that "people who see themselves as wanting a fair playing field no matter who is in power are appalled at the authoritarian nature of #goolag's ideological filter bubble". I don't care if it's hard core xtians telling people they can't live in sin, or SJWs telling people they can't think sinful thoughts, they're both nuts, and it's no way to run a railroad.
Your assertion that he did any activism at all is silly - he posted on an internal board that solicited responses, and someone else who was offended by it leaked it to gizmodo. The company should fire the leaker, not the whistleblower.
If Google is discriminating on people based on their race or sex in their hiring process, and having secret unrecorded meetings when discussing their illegal hiring practices, then yeah, it's whistleblowing.
You are correct. It was the original Damore memo that made the claims about women with more freedom making more varied choices from men. I intended to defend Damore's position, not TimothyHollins.
A fair point about any social science work, to be sure. Like, if you say, a priori, decided that men and women were the same and any differences in job application rates was due to patriarchy :)
If that's the case, then you're being maliciously slanderous. You're literally lying about what he said, and defaming Damore's intentions and character by attributing thoughts and feelings to him that he simply does not have.
On the other hand, if you're just stupid, or let's say ignorant, then maybe you're coming at this with good intentions, and failing without malice :)
Nobody argued with him - they vilified him in the press, lied about what he said, and then fired him.
Show me a single moment where anyone from #Goolag leadership actually addressed his arguments, rather than simply paraphrasing them into the most unflattering light.
And again, race != sex. Race is an illusion with no biological basis. Sex is real, tangible, quantifiable, and measurable. It's like you're criticizing Buddhism because it's a religion like Islam, and Islam kills homosexuals. The two aren't the same thing, and your continued attempt to smear Damore with racism by association is both hurtful and unfair.
Of course on average they have more sources of stress - they're more sensitive to stress on average.
Things that a man might not even notice (a social dig in a meeting, a backhanded compliment from a colleague, or even the hum of conversation in a shared space), a woman may be more sensitive to. So in the exact same environment, women will have more sources of stress.
To automatically assume that there are sex-specific sources of stress (say, dirty toilets only in the women's room, or a dress code that insists on full face coverings), is silly.
As for "admitting" versus "keeping inside", exactly how do you read a man's mind to tell that they're "not admitting" something? And why do you think that if men behaved more like women and just "admitted" things, that it would be of any benefit to men?
Men and women have fairly distinct coping mechanisms - I wouldn't assume that one is better than the other, they're just different.
Are you really saying that economic factors are *better* in Russia, and *worse* in Sweden?
The US is certainly not perfect, but if you wanted to help women's rights, it's pretty low on the list after all sharia compliant countries, and other openly misogynistic regimes.
full article: http://russia-insider.com/en/o...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/art...
"I have visited a fair number of countries this year in the course of filming a documentary series on the history of women. Some could hardly be described as bastions of tolerance and equality. But only in Russia dis I witness sexism bolstered by state-sanctioned menace and contempt."
Maybe the highest proportion of women in top government roles is due to a lack of choices they have.
Read the quote again.
"differ in part"
"differences may explain"
There's nothing controversial there. Of course men and women differ in part due to biology. No, really, they do.
Of course these differences *may* explain things. Not "they do explain" or "they must explain" but "they *MAY* explain".
To anyone who can read, he believes that men and women differ *IN PART* due to biology (implying that the differ also because of other external factors like socialization), and that this *MAY* explain observed statistical differences.
Why is it that people on the left literally quote him, but don't READ him. You cannot *possibly* defend the assertion that women's biology contributes NOTHING at all to them being less likely to be found in positions of leadership. It's like saying CO2 has zero influence on the climate - it's preposterous.