For example, he states that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. We know that isn't true, because we have studied it in great detail.
You make a claim without substantiating it. From the quick google I seesomethingdifferent. The number of stressors could be a factor or the way the brain operates but either way there is more to it than what you lead on. Also, the links to his original memo were initially stripped out, did you check his sources or are assuming he was making unsubstantiated claims like you?
Considering the guy was fired and the responses in TFS it does sound like people were screeching autistically because someone said something they didn't like.
The point is even if the average of women can't do X you don't make it impossible for them to try X. Further, if you have a gender gap of "100m sprints" then it may not be because of systemic sexism in an organization that has "100m sprints".
1) It was never argued that women are lesser for having different interests or motivations. Taking more risks isn't necessarily a good or bad in and of itself but it can lead to higher status or higher probability to land in jail or homeless. Likewise, taking fewer risks isn't good or bad but it can lead to less status and less chance to be homeless or in jail. Yes, you are right. Diverse perspectives are beneficial which is why the original memo pointed out that there is a distinct lack of diversity of thought in google. This lack of diversity causes issues such as shaming into silence and an inability to honestly discuss ideas because some are too sacred (as the responses have shown them to be too sacred).
2) Social behavior is influenced by biology such as the examples listed in the original memo. Again, the point is that systemic sexism may not be adequate in accurately explaining the gender gap and forcing 50/50 gender representation through discrimination is unfair and bad for business.
Most people who looked at the evidence seriously came to the same conclusion, but some people keep insisting that we do it all again from scratch and occasionally one of them puts out a well written, reasonable sounding document that people who want to believe those things latch on to.
I can sympathize with that but the problem is when you reject any criticism and any discussion. The lack of diversity of thought coupled with the moralization of politics makes it impossible to discuss and come to a better understanding. The point of any discussion should never be the end result but the arguments, logic, and facts to get there.
Further what I appreciated in the original was that any political bias will make it difficult to discuss the subject honestly. Since google is very left leaning any left leaning topic is difficult to discuss because of their political bias. The responses so far is what you would expect if his opinion was based in reality. Looks like it was.
It never said that "women can't do X because biology" but they have different interests and motivations and a gender gap may very well be explained without gender based discrimination. We should treat people as individuals not as groups. It also said that political biases will make it difficult to talk about the issues that diversity programs may cause such as treating individuals as a group.
No one is arguing that women can't do X but rather because of biological differences the average can create a gender gap even when the individual is an exception.
The president is a single elected official. There are hundreds of elected officials that get bribes and that's just on the federal level.
yes, and if you look at the history of the elections since Citizen United, it isn't clear that money determines the victor that is why I said "the last few" because the most recent ones in memory were the special congressional elections in addition to the presidential. The moneyed candidates lost.
what elected officials do while in office.
That has always been the case and probably always will be as it is intrinsic to a Republic. See arguments for the 17th amendment to see what that argument looks like from the last century.
An ISP could literally prevent you from visiting sites that are specifically for donating money to your cause of choice.
Again, that hasn't happened and even then there are more options to bypass that then say google or facebook censoring political ideology. One is a problem that is actively occurring that concerns me while the other is a hypothetical could happen that I have no power to control until it becomes a problem.
What matters is what politicians think because they enact laws.
Really? I would have never guessed but who puts those politicians into office also count. People do vote politicians out of office for not doing what they promise to do. Incumbency be damned.
Do everyone a favor and get a grip on reality.
Ok, then I will be sure to vote and convince others to vote for politicians that do what you don't like. Democracy is fun.
1) The irony about the "bribes" is that the party (democrats) that spent more money lost. So, that didn't effect the last few elections like you think it did. Moneyed candidates have been losing. More money != coronation like Clinton thought.
2) That is why they have advisors and experts. The problem is when those experts and advisors have their own agenda. I don't trust Google, Facebook, or Twitter to give expertise that is beneficial to people when they actively censor political opinions they don't like.
ISP interfering with online political donations and we'll suddenly have net neutrality.
Facebook, google, and twitter have already been doing that through censorship. If it hasn't already happened why should I be more concerned about it than a problem that is actively happening now?
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all been censoring opinions from the right and promoting far Leftism as well.
This actually concerns me more than net neutrality because at least everyone understand that access to the pipes shouldn't be restricted (either its slow or expensive access isn't restricted by policy).
The world doesn't give a fuck about your politics. Institutions with 90% > liberal leaning do. Liberals being biased and unable to see their bias doesn't mean that their bias is based in reality.
I am more concerned with companies like google inhibiting my ability to vent my frustration on the internet. They are the #1 visited site and have proven they are not afraid of shadow banning or manipulating search results to disenfranchise wrong speak and double ungood ideas. Two sides to the same coin, but at least right now the arguments to keep the censorship abilities of the ISPs to a minimum have some traction and have precedent to open up the markets.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — a fooled man can't get fooled again."
More often than not, you have to keep the standard of living the mother and the child are accustomed. It doesn't matter if you can still afford it or not.
Absolutely agree and that is one reason I hope for a day with male BC so that I don't have to make a permanent decision like a vasectomy to take control of my own birth control.
or be in a position where the other party could be misleading them.
This is more difficult because it amounts to; "Trust no one". Being in a relationship, a healthy one at least, is built on some level of trust.
At least with AI the initial goals were hit and our definition changed to some degree. "AI will play chess and win!"... "Ok, it can play chess really really well but that's only because it can see every move and choose the best one not because it is intelligent.".
For me at least, the ability to change my mind is why I am partial to the idea of male BC. When I am a little older or at least certain on the permanency of no children then a vasectomy makes more sense.
But the difference is that women BC tricks the body into being in a normal natural state while male BC is forcing the body through hormones into an unnatural state. This is evident by some women are prescribed by their doctor to be on birth control to help regulate their bodies hormone imbalance.
It reminds me of Addyi (female Viagra) and Viagra. It's biologically easy to get it up via drugs because it's all muscle and blood flow such that Viagra was an accidental side effect to originally help hypertension. However, getting the females "in the mood" pill is a cocktail of hormones and other drugs that cause all kind of problems as we have seen with Addyi.
Slashdot Mirror
The guy was fired.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
For example, he states that women are more neurotic and less able to deal with stress. We know that isn't true, because we have studied it in great detail.
You make a claim without substantiating it. From the quick google I see something different. The number of stressors could be a factor or the way the brain operates but either way there is more to it than what you lead on. Also, the links to his original memo were initially stripped out, did you check his sources or are assuming he was making unsubstantiated claims like you?
Considering the guy was fired and the responses in TFS it does sound like people were screeching autistically because someone said something they didn't like.
The point is even if the average of women can't do X you don't make it impossible for them to try X. Further, if you have a gender gap of "100m sprints" then it may not be because of systemic sexism in an organization that has "100m sprints".
1) It was never argued that women are lesser for having different interests or motivations. Taking more risks isn't necessarily a good or bad in and of itself but it can lead to higher status or higher probability to land in jail or homeless. Likewise, taking fewer risks isn't good or bad but it can lead to less status and less chance to be homeless or in jail. Yes, you are right. Diverse perspectives are beneficial which is why the original memo pointed out that there is a distinct lack of diversity of thought in google. This lack of diversity causes issues such as shaming into silence and an inability to honestly discuss ideas because some are too sacred (as the responses have shown them to be too sacred).
2) Social behavior is influenced by biology such as the examples listed in the original memo. Again, the point is that systemic sexism may not be adequate in accurately explaining the gender gap and forcing 50/50 gender representation through discrimination is unfair and bad for business.
Most people who looked at the evidence seriously came to the same conclusion, but some people keep insisting that we do it all again from scratch and occasionally one of them puts out a well written, reasonable sounding document that people who want to believe those things latch on to.
I can sympathize with that but the problem is when you reject any criticism and any discussion. The lack of diversity of thought coupled with the moralization of politics makes it impossible to discuss and come to a better understanding. The point of any discussion should never be the end result but the arguments, logic, and facts to get there.
Further what I appreciated in the original was that any political bias will make it difficult to discuss the subject honestly. Since google is very left leaning any left leaning topic is difficult to discuss because of their political bias. The responses so far is what you would expect if his opinion was based in reality. Looks like it was.
It never said that "women can't do X because biology" but they have different interests and motivations and a gender gap may very well be explained without gender based discrimination. We should treat people as individuals not as groups. It also said that political biases will make it difficult to talk about the issues that diversity programs may cause such as treating individuals as a group.
No one is arguing that women can't do X but rather because of biological differences the average can create a gender gap even when the individual is an exception.
The president is a single elected official. There are hundreds of elected officials that get bribes and that's just on the federal level.
yes, and if you look at the history of the elections since Citizen United, it isn't clear that money determines the victor that is why I said "the last few" because the most recent ones in memory were the special congressional elections in addition to the presidential. The moneyed candidates lost.
what elected officials do while in office.
That has always been the case and probably always will be as it is intrinsic to a Republic. See arguments for the 17th amendment to see what that argument looks like from the last century.
An ISP could literally prevent you from visiting sites that are specifically for donating money to your cause of choice.
Again, that hasn't happened and even then there are more options to bypass that then say google or facebook censoring political ideology. One is a problem that is actively occurring that concerns me while the other is a hypothetical could happen that I have no power to control until it becomes a problem.
What matters is what politicians think because they enact laws.
Really? I would have never guessed but who puts those politicians into office also count. People do vote politicians out of office for not doing what they promise to do. Incumbency be damned.
Do everyone a favor and get a grip on reality.
Ok, then I will be sure to vote and convince others to vote for politicians that do what you don't like. Democracy is fun.
1) The irony about the "bribes" is that the party (democrats) that spent more money lost. So, that didn't effect the last few elections like you think it did. Moneyed candidates have been losing. More money != coronation like Clinton thought.
2) That is why they have advisors and experts. The problem is when those experts and advisors have their own agenda. I don't trust Google, Facebook, or Twitter to give expertise that is beneficial to people when they actively censor political opinions they don't like.
ISP interfering with online political donations and we'll suddenly have net neutrality.
Facebook, google, and twitter have already been doing that through censorship. If it hasn't already happened why should I be more concerned about it than a problem that is actively happening now?
Google, Facebook, and Twitter have all been censoring opinions from the right and promoting far Leftism as well.
This actually concerns me more than net neutrality because at least everyone understand that access to the pipes shouldn't be restricted (either its slow or expensive access isn't restricted by policy).
Is that because academia and the MSM lean left?
The world doesn't give a fuck about your politics. Institutions with 90% > liberal leaning do. Liberals being biased and unable to see their bias doesn't mean that their bias is based in reality.
I am more concerned with companies like google inhibiting my ability to vent my frustration on the internet. They are the #1 visited site and have proven they are not afraid of shadow banning or manipulating search results to disenfranchise wrong speak and double ungood ideas. Two sides to the same coin, but at least right now the arguments to keep the censorship abilities of the ISPs to a minimum have some traction and have precedent to open up the markets.
Wow, that was so funny I forgot to laugh.
I think the take away is ANAL. The sex act not the acronym.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — a fooled man can't get fooled again."
Ah, one of the best presidential quotes.
More often than not, you have to keep the standard of living the mother and the child are accustomed. It doesn't matter if you can still afford it or not.
Both.
Nice dehumanization you did there. Remember, it's not murder if their not human. You would fit right in with ze Nazi's.
lol, thanks for the giggle. I was not expecting that one.
Absolutely agree and that is one reason I hope for a day with male BC so that I don't have to make a permanent decision like a vasectomy to take control of my own birth control.
or be in a position where the other party could be misleading them.
This is more difficult because it amounts to; "Trust no one". Being in a relationship, a healthy one at least, is built on some level of trust.
Yes, sleep in a separate bed away from the wife... She has cooties ya' know!
At least with AI the initial goals were hit and our definition changed to some degree. "AI will play chess and win!"... "Ok, it can play chess really really well but that's only because it can see every move and choose the best one not because it is intelligent.".
For me at least, the ability to change my mind is why I am partial to the idea of male BC. When I am a little older or at least certain on the permanency of no children then a vasectomy makes more sense.
They have these little rubber thingies that you put on banannas to stop women from getting pregnant
I got some bad news for you.
btw, men do it too. Being an ass hole isn't limited to one gender.
But the difference is that women BC tricks the body into being in a normal natural state while male BC is forcing the body through hormones into an unnatural state. This is evident by some women are prescribed by their doctor to be on birth control to help regulate their bodies hormone imbalance.
It reminds me of Addyi (female Viagra) and Viagra. It's biologically easy to get it up via drugs because it's all muscle and blood flow such that Viagra was an accidental side effect to originally help hypertension. However, getting the females "in the mood" pill is a cocktail of hormones and other drugs that cause all kind of problems as we have seen with Addyi.
Because women don't lie about being on the pill? I got some bad news for you.
Funny that, you don't have to be the biological father to pay child support. http://clementlaw.com/child-su...
Even if the woman lies about birth control you are still liable. http://www.kidspot.com.au/birt...?