probably quoting what you read. The basic idea is that a transgender person cannot rape a cisgendered person because transgendered people are below cisgendered people on the "power" totem pole, apparently. But what if the rapist was a white cop and the person raped was a black prisoner?
I literally can't even...
No, not quoting that. Rather something I ran across in my volunteer work, and something that is driving volunteers out of doing that particular type of work. This idea is being pushed by people heavy in gender studies, and other social justice type stuff among other "inclusive" ideologies and orthodoxies. I'm not surprised you found someone posting something similar though.
In policing, law, courts, this type of socjus cancer is infecting all of them. It's being helped along by the current rapid brand of feminism, you know the one. "If you criticize women, you're a misogynist" brand. This is how things like title ix in the US happened with the claim that "there's a rape culture on campuses" and so on. It's out of the same boat that these feminists and other socjus supporters are trying to change rape and sexual assault laws so that the burden of proof is no longer based on evidence, but on the balance of probabilities. Or to put it simply: Feelings.
Hit a search engine and you can find a belief in a god across nearly every society. Does that make the existence of god "science"?
Depends, do you want to go with 14th century science? Or would you like to go with the "it's scientific until we disprove otherwise" line of reasoning? Because if you can disprove it, then you're going to get a nobel prize. Never mind that this something that's found across nearly every society on earth, across social, economic, and political ideologies.
Let's look at it this way. My lawn isn't the gatekeeper to a large segment of western and eastern society. Google on the other hand is one of those. Considering that the only reason he's been fired is not complying with orthodoxy, your point doesn't really seem to stand.
Every work place may have an agenda. Google on the other hand is pushing a anti-speech, pro-censorship agenda which you don't seem to have a problem with.
And this is the part where you learn something about employment law. Like when the company provides you with a means to openly discuss things like this on internal mailing lists, and promotes that it does so. Then fires you for doing that, because it's not the "right kind of thinking." But by law, you're allowed to openly discuss the state of the company and it's work environment. I'll let you think on just how many ways google is screwed on this one now.
Hiring someone because of their gender is not treating everyone equally. Hiring someone because of their sexuality isn't equality. Hiring someone based on their race isn't equality. But apparently in the land of political correctness and soc-jus, these are all forms of equality.
That in truth, isn't equality. None of those people being treated as such are being treated as an equal, they're all being given special handicaps in order to get that position.
That "manifesto" was the most offensive document I've seen come out of Google.
So when youtube(google) decided to push a pro-censorship agenda, you didn't find that offensive? You're so thin skinned that words hurt your feelings, not words being spoken to your face. But words which have no vocal inflection what-so-ever hurt your feelings.
They're actually right. The first things the soviets did was force through ideological purity tests. This is what we're looking at now. This was then followed up by firing people, creating blacklists and so on. Once the organization was in compliance with doctrine, they would move onto other areas. This included killing people, torturing them, forced labor camps and so on.
Funny how people don't seem to understand how this all started. Google isn't the only organization doing this, you can see it in universities as well. You can see it against public speakers like Dawkins, among others. He failed the ideological purity test, so he was banned from speaking.
Explain in 500 words or less, how he dislikes women.
I'm sure that getting on your white armor will take some time. After all, you just have to go out and defend all those damsels from any mere hint of criticism.
Obviously you never even read his "rant". Instead you've concocted a straw man based on what you think he was saying instead of what he actually said, and have judged him based on the straw man rather than what he actually said.
No, it's worse then that. They've concocted a straw man based on what they've been told by people who are pushing the agenda that he's anti-woman. This is exactly the same bullshit that was used against gamergate, when they pushed the narrative that the people who spoke up against shitty game journo's were "white males, who live in their parents basements and are misogynists."
When presented with the exact opposite, like the women defending this guy's view? They ignore it, pretend they don't exist. Just like how the progressives ignored the minorities and women in gamergate, or simply called them house n*iggers, uncle toms, have internalized misogyny, and so on.
You watch, and in the next 2 days you'll start seeing hit pieces against the people who spoke in favor or defended his views will be smeared, attacked, and dragged through the mud. And it won't surprise me if the "progressive 'we believe in free speech -- really' social justice" supporters, also try going after their jobs to boot.
He won't get a penny, because Google will just point to all the screaming conservatives who were emboldened to express their belief that women are inferior as evidence of creating a toxic environment.
Just look at the moderation on Slashdot for counter-evidence. Systematic down-modding by conservatives against anyone who presents a wrongthink opinion.
Really? Conservatives are an extreme minority on slashdot. There are likely more libertarians then conservatives posting here. Just like in the tech industry they're an extreme minority. What you're seeing is the left-side of the political axis having shifted towards authoritarian left when they started drinking the identity politics hard over the last decade. It's more likely you went along for the ride and they're still in relatively the same place politically. Thus you see "more conservatives" then actually exist.
That's obviously not what he means. Let's dispense with the straw man arguments, okay?
Except that's a fundamental talking point among the pro-diversity crowd. Disagreement = violence.Disagreement = hate speech. And so on. There's a thing among the social justice groupies that likes to redefine words, actions, and so on. Here's one I ran across the other day in reference to a male rape victim. They were told and to paraphrase: "You aren't a rape victim, you're a victim of forced sexual intercourse. Since rape can only be committed by people in positions of power. So only white men can rape." Enjoying that logic? It's not any different then the social justice advocates stating that it's impossible for a black to be racist, because racism requires privilege+power.
The memo claims that women are more neurotic. It claims that this is biological.... What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
It's factually accurate too, and it is biological -- hit a search engine you can find it across nearly every society to boot. So you're arguing against science now, and something that's been been backed up by decades of studies. To flip it around, I wouldn't have had a problem with him stating that men are more aggressive when it comes to negotiations either. Because that's factually correct too.
The open discussion that takes place is through the standard channels is quite different than forwarding a 10 page vent to your fellow "Googlers" as he called them.
You mean that discussion list that google maintains exactly for this type of thing? He pointed out flaws, and the people who believe in ideology of outcome instead of ability threw a hissyfit over it. Some of them even decided that they wanted to become violent over it. Gee it's almost like "punch a nazi" is pervasive in identity politics or something...
He used the correct channels. Someone else leaked this out because it hurt their feelings. You do realize that google promoted this type of stuff inside their corporate culture, and people were welcome to write out things like this.
That sham-diversity is even a banner to rally around instead of merit is one of the reasons that this guy wrote what he did. Hire the best, don't hire the paraplegic-trangender-black-lesbian because it makes you look good in your social circles.
Because at the end of the road, the same ones who are promoting that person to be hired for their non-abilities, will also be promoting segregation in order to protect their special little groups whether it be by race/sex/insertspecialthing. As we've seen over the last year and change at universities, and I'm pretty damn sure that we went through this garbage in the 1960's and 1970's. But some people sure seem to be up to bring it back.
Most big companies have a very good internal process for dealing with this kind of thing. Instead, we're discussing it on slashdot, and THAT is why the person got fired.
You do realize that they were following that internal process. Google itself "says it prides itself on open discussion." Which is what this person did, another person posted his 10 page email, which was then traced back to him. In other words, they followed what was allowed, which makes this seem all the more of a witch hunt against those not following the groupthink.
so you don't waste time putting someone with Type 1 on Metformin (a pill that is only used for Type 2 diabetes) who cannot benefit from it
That AC is right, you have no idea of what you're talking about -- this is coming from someone who has multiple members of their family with diabetes. Metformin is routinely used with Type 1 diabetics especially those who are having problems with insulin resistance, and for some people who have higher blood sugar levels with type 1 -- it can be used as part of treatment with long-acting insulin to avoid dangerous spiking. It's also been found useful as a pretreatment option for those who have a history of heart disease in their family and diabetes, in helping to repair the heart itself.
Don't worry. Women lead in infanticide. Also child abuse is massively under-reported when the victims are male(women make up around 40% of those cases). And then there's things like how male suicide statistics are conveniently shoved aside, while focusing on the number of female suicides. Which of course is why you see things like 6:1(F:M) ratios for suicide prevention services. Or you see bullshit things like "1:4 women are victims of rape."
That would be taking their grain to sell it on the world market.
You mean the mainland USSR was suffering severe food shortages, and they took everything that they could. Including cattle, then told those Ukrainian's that they had to produce the exact same quota for next year. Lot's of people ended up in gulag's from that one, and they were the lucky ones who stayed.
Is that why the crooks keep on stealing? Just the week, one go convicted, but has the system changed?
Yeah and what's the difference between the two. I'll let you think on that a little bit, because the answer should be obvious. If it's not, then you should brush up on reality a bit more.
Can we go with the version of socialism the USSR did against the Ukraine then? I'm sure the millions dead from starvation would like to speak up, well if they could.
No, it's not a crook. What you have is socialism propping up another dictatorship under the guise of "we'll provide it all" and it fully collapsing under not only their theft of private property, but the lack of that stolen private property to produce anything. And on top of that, if you were a private enterprise why would you want to do business there when the state has already taken from other private individuals. It was the same in Cuba too, and every socialist paradise that's come to rise.
Say what you will about capitalism, but market forces do tend to shake the boat enough to cause the collapse of bad actors.
Then you ended up attacking an innocent pizza parlor.
Really? I did?
You mean the story that you were screaming over for weeks, if not months, that you, and the GOP and House Republicans kept trying to fan into a fire, desperate that we believe all their smoke?
So wait, you're trying to dispute FOIA documents now?
Or we can look at Michael Flynn, Paul Manaforte, or Donald Jr. Himself. Now there is some meat. Or Trump's un-independent business dealings.
Oh, media matters huh? Not one to shoot the messenger, but considering they're an actual political advocacy group...that's in violation of their non-profit status, and has a long history of quote mining in order to create "gotcha moments" which turn out to be nothing, you'll need to do better.
What is it with you, can you just not resist the urge to lie?
So, again those FOIA documents aren't real? Want to stick to those. Remember that salon article? Yeah it's not an article either, but an out-of-context opinion piece. No different then something coming from the mouth of Dowd. In other words, if you believe that, why are you lying? They're telling you what to believe. Not leaving the evidence and letting you make the choice.
The rest of the paragraph is just speculation that has not been proven - even the paragraph you cite admits it's just speculation.
The genetic factor has been well known since Fredrick Banting figured out insulin and how to use it in treatment. He specifically looked for individuals who were at high risk of developing type 1 after animal trials. Things like trialnet if you turned around and read it are looking at possible primary triggers besides genetic factors, which may or may not also cause type 1.
And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.
Slashdot Mirror
probably quoting what you read. The basic idea is that a transgender person cannot rape a cisgendered person because transgendered people are below cisgendered people on the "power" totem pole, apparently. But what if the rapist was a white cop and the person raped was a black prisoner?
I literally can't even...
No, not quoting that. Rather something I ran across in my volunteer work, and something that is driving volunteers out of doing that particular type of work. This idea is being pushed by people heavy in gender studies, and other social justice type stuff among other "inclusive" ideologies and orthodoxies. I'm not surprised you found someone posting something similar though.
In policing, law, courts, this type of socjus cancer is infecting all of them. It's being helped along by the current rapid brand of feminism, you know the one. "If you criticize women, you're a misogynist" brand. This is how things like title ix in the US happened with the claim that "there's a rape culture on campuses" and so on. It's out of the same boat that these feminists and other socjus supporters are trying to change rape and sexual assault laws so that the burden of proof is no longer based on evidence, but on the balance of probabilities. Or to put it simply: Feelings.
Hit a search engine and you can find a belief in a god across nearly every society. Does that make the existence of god "science"?
Depends, do you want to go with 14th century science? Or would you like to go with the "it's scientific until we disprove otherwise" line of reasoning? Because if you can disprove it, then you're going to get a nobel prize. Never mind that this something that's found across nearly every society on earth, across social, economic, and political ideologies.
I await your thesis.
Let's look at it this way. My lawn isn't the gatekeeper to a large segment of western and eastern society. Google on the other hand is one of those. Considering that the only reason he's been fired is not complying with orthodoxy, your point doesn't really seem to stand.
Every work place may have an agenda. Google on the other hand is pushing a anti-speech, pro-censorship agenda which you don't seem to have a problem with.
And this is the part where you learn something about employment law. Like when the company provides you with a means to openly discuss things like this on internal mailing lists, and promotes that it does so. Then fires you for doing that, because it's not the "right kind of thinking." But by law, you're allowed to openly discuss the state of the company and it's work environment. I'll let you think on just how many ways google is screwed on this one now.
I ask the stop with the straw man arguments, so you throw out another straw man - the dreaded Social Justice Warriors again.
Uh-huh, I'm sure you can explain how that SJW is using the exact argument above is really wrong. It's not a straw man when it's actually happening.
Hiring someone because of their gender is not treating everyone equally. Hiring someone because of their sexuality isn't equality. Hiring someone based on their race isn't equality. But apparently in the land of political correctness and soc-jus, these are all forms of equality.
That in truth, isn't equality. None of those people being treated as such are being treated as an equal, they're all being given special handicaps in order to get that position.
That "manifesto" was the most offensive document I've seen come out of Google.
So when youtube(google) decided to push a pro-censorship agenda, you didn't find that offensive? You're so thin skinned that words hurt your feelings, not words being spoken to your face. But words which have no vocal inflection what-so-ever hurt your feelings.
They're actually right. The first things the soviets did was force through ideological purity tests. This is what we're looking at now. This was then followed up by firing people, creating blacklists and so on. Once the organization was in compliance with doctrine, they would move onto other areas. This included killing people, torturing them, forced labor camps and so on.
Funny how people don't seem to understand how this all started. Google isn't the only organization doing this, you can see it in universities as well. You can see it against public speakers like Dawkins, among others. He failed the ideological purity test, so he was banned from speaking.
He seems to dislike women.
Explain in 500 words or less, how he dislikes women.
I'm sure that getting on your white armor will take some time. After all, you just have to go out and defend all those damsels from any mere hint of criticism.
Obviously you never even read his "rant". Instead you've concocted a straw man based on what you think he was saying instead of what he actually said, and have judged him based on the straw man rather than what he actually said.
No, it's worse then that. They've concocted a straw man based on what they've been told by people who are pushing the agenda that he's anti-woman. This is exactly the same bullshit that was used against gamergate, when they pushed the narrative that the people who spoke up against shitty game journo's were "white males, who live in their parents basements and are misogynists."
When presented with the exact opposite, like the women defending this guy's view? They ignore it, pretend they don't exist. Just like how the progressives ignored the minorities and women in gamergate, or simply called them house n*iggers, uncle toms, have internalized misogyny, and so on.
You watch, and in the next 2 days you'll start seeing hit pieces against the people who spoke in favor or defended his views will be smeared, attacked, and dragged through the mud. And it won't surprise me if the "progressive 'we believe in free speech -- really' social justice" supporters, also try going after their jobs to boot.
He won't get a penny, because Google will just point to all the screaming conservatives who were emboldened to express their belief that women are inferior as evidence of creating a toxic environment.
Google is based out of Saudi Arabia? Who knew.
Just look at the moderation on Slashdot for counter-evidence. Systematic down-modding by conservatives against anyone who presents a wrongthink opinion.
Really? Conservatives are an extreme minority on slashdot. There are likely more libertarians then conservatives posting here. Just like in the tech industry they're an extreme minority. What you're seeing is the left-side of the political axis having shifted towards authoritarian left when they started drinking the identity politics hard over the last decade. It's more likely you went along for the ride and they're still in relatively the same place politically. Thus you see "more conservatives" then actually exist.
No one used that phrase until this year.
Maybe you need to get out of your bubble more often? At least 3 years or so.
That's obviously not what he means. Let's dispense with the straw man arguments, okay?
Except that's a fundamental talking point among the pro-diversity crowd. Disagreement = violence. Disagreement = hate speech. And so on. There's a thing among the social justice groupies that likes to redefine words, actions, and so on. Here's one I ran across the other day in reference to a male rape victim. They were told and to paraphrase: "You aren't a rape victim, you're a victim of forced sexual intercourse. Since rape can only be committed by people in positions of power. So only white men can rape." Enjoying that logic? It's not any different then the social justice advocates stating that it's impossible for a black to be racist, because racism requires privilege+power.
The memo claims that women are more neurotic. It claims that this is biological. ... What shockingly ignorant, backward thinking set of concepts.
It's factually accurate too, and it is biological -- hit a search engine you can find it across nearly every society to boot. So you're arguing against science now, and something that's been been backed up by decades of studies. To flip it around, I wouldn't have had a problem with him stating that men are more aggressive when it comes to negotiations either. Because that's factually correct too.
The open discussion that takes place is through the standard channels is quite different than forwarding a 10 page vent to your fellow "Googlers" as he called them.
You mean that discussion list that google maintains exactly for this type of thing? He pointed out flaws, and the people who believe in ideology of outcome instead of ability threw a hissyfit over it. Some of them even decided that they wanted to become violent over it. Gee it's almost like "punch a nazi" is pervasive in identity politics or something...
He used the correct channels. Someone else leaked this out because it hurt their feelings. You do realize that google promoted this type of stuff inside their corporate culture, and people were welcome to write out things like this.
That sham-diversity is even a banner to rally around instead of merit is one of the reasons that this guy wrote what he did. Hire the best, don't hire the paraplegic-trangender-black-lesbian because it makes you look good in your social circles.
Because at the end of the road, the same ones who are promoting that person to be hired for their non-abilities, will also be promoting segregation in order to protect their special little groups whether it be by race/sex/insertspecialthing. As we've seen over the last year and change at universities, and I'm pretty damn sure that we went through this garbage in the 1960's and 1970's. But some people sure seem to be up to bring it back.
Most big companies have a very good internal process for dealing with this kind of thing. Instead, we're discussing it on slashdot, and THAT is why the person got fired.
You do realize that they were following that internal process. Google itself "says it prides itself on open discussion." Which is what this person did, another person posted his 10 page email, which was then traced back to him. In other words, they followed what was allowed, which makes this seem all the more of a witch hunt against those not following the groupthink.
Sure do. They've even got their ideological blacklists going on to boot. Sure is pretty authoritarian over there... Especially when people are saying well, that PhD biologist seems to have gotten it right.
so you don't waste time putting someone with Type 1 on Metformin (a pill that is only used for Type 2 diabetes) who cannot benefit from it
That AC is right, you have no idea of what you're talking about -- this is coming from someone who has multiple members of their family with diabetes. Metformin is routinely used with Type 1 diabetics especially those who are having problems with insulin resistance, and for some people who have higher blood sugar levels with type 1 -- it can be used as part of treatment with long-acting insulin to avoid dangerous spiking. It's also been found useful as a pretreatment option for those who have a history of heart disease in their family and diabetes, in helping to repair the heart itself.
Don't worry. Women lead in infanticide. Also child abuse is massively under-reported when the victims are male(women make up around 40% of those cases). And then there's things like how male suicide statistics are conveniently shoved aside, while focusing on the number of female suicides. Which of course is why you see things like 6:1(F:M) ratios for suicide prevention services. Or you see bullshit things like "1:4 women are victims of rape."
That would be taking their grain to sell it on the world market.
You mean the mainland USSR was suffering severe food shortages, and they took everything that they could. Including cattle, then told those Ukrainian's that they had to produce the exact same quota for next year. Lot's of people ended up in gulag's from that one, and they were the lucky ones who stayed.
Is that why the crooks keep on stealing? Just the week, one go convicted, but has the system changed?
Yeah and what's the difference between the two. I'll let you think on that a little bit, because the answer should be obvious. If it's not, then you should brush up on reality a bit more.
Can we go with the version of socialism the USSR did against the Ukraine then? I'm sure the millions dead from starvation would like to speak up, well if they could.
No, it's not a crook. What you have is socialism propping up another dictatorship under the guise of "we'll provide it all" and it fully collapsing under not only their theft of private property, but the lack of that stolen private property to produce anything. And on top of that, if you were a private enterprise why would you want to do business there when the state has already taken from other private individuals. It was the same in Cuba too, and every socialist paradise that's come to rise.
Say what you will about capitalism, but market forces do tend to shake the boat enough to cause the collapse of bad actors.
Then you ended up attacking an innocent pizza parlor.
Really? I did?
You mean the story that you were screaming over for weeks, if not months, that you, and the GOP and House Republicans kept trying to fan into a fire, desperate that we believe all their smoke?
So wait, you're trying to dispute FOIA documents now?
Or we can look at Michael Flynn, Paul Manaforte, or Donald Jr. Himself. Now there is some meat. Or Trump's un-independent business dealings.
Oh, media matters huh? Not one to shoot the messenger, but considering they're an actual political advocacy group...that's in violation of their non-profit status, and has a long history of quote mining in order to create "gotcha moments" which turn out to be nothing, you'll need to do better.
What is it with you, can you just not resist the urge to lie?
So, again those FOIA documents aren't real? Want to stick to those. Remember that salon article? Yeah it's not an article either, but an out-of-context opinion piece. No different then something coming from the mouth of Dowd. In other words, if you believe that, why are you lying? They're telling you what to believe. Not leaving the evidence and letting you make the choice.
The rest of the paragraph is just speculation that has not been proven - even the paragraph you cite admits it's just speculation.
The genetic factor has been well known since Fredrick Banting figured out insulin and how to use it in treatment. He specifically looked for individuals who were at high risk of developing type 1 after animal trials. Things like trialnet if you turned around and read it are looking at possible primary triggers besides genetic factors, which may or may not also cause type 1.
And yet mysteriously, the fake information abounded, in fact, the fake information has a long history of existing. A lot of it from Trump, who seems inclined to create accomplishments out of smoke and mirrors. But a lot from the GOP, who still wants to chase after Benghazi and Whitewater.
Would that also be like the claims by the media, DNC and so on that Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton were just talking about grandkids? Or is it just a case that the FBI lied, the DNC and Obama administration covered it up, and the media directly worked with both to try and bury the story. Enjoy these FOIA documents, because the whole gigantic clusterfuck of collusion, lies, and complete bullshit from the previous administration and DNC is coming home. You can read the summarized version including the emails here if you don't want to read the ACLJ's stuff. Enjoy the part about the Washington Post wanting to bury the story.
That isn't even touching on the stuff uncovered by Judicial Watch.