The words "biologically suited" never appears in the essay.
He also never said some people were "neurotic". He said: "Women, on average, have more [...] neuroticism", linking to Wikipedia on sex differences in neuroticism (which does have research citations for those who want to hand-wave Wikipedia), and further explaining the term to mean "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", NOT the derogatory colloquial meaning which people have, either ignorantly or maliciously, interpreted it to mean.
He prefaced his words with this:
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Notice how he goes out of his way to point out that "there's overlap between men and women" when talking about averages. Now, read the news articles and commentary which completely mischaracterize him.
-Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
-Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
-Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
-This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs
The guy didn't even identify himself as a conservative. He only mentions them to make a point about the echo chamber. He identified himself as a liberal, and explicitly said he was PRO-diversity. His criticism was the WAY in which diversity is pursued at Google. Read the essay, he said it is right to encourage women into STEM, and to dismantle barriers, but he says that a 50/50 expectation is unrealistic based on the research he cites (which Gizmodo left out).
Heres's a guess: - Journalists would NOT label his writing an "anti-business manifesto/screed" - Journalists would, in fact, be sympathetic to him, write human-interest articles about his "journey", and work on long-form investigative stories about the oppressive anti-free-speech monoculture that has been developing on Wall Street. - Neither those journalists nor their audience would bring up how "it isn't the government doing it so it's not a free speech issue"
Even after several news organizations apologized and retracted their statements about "17 intelligence organizations all agreeing", Politifact continued to offer apologetics for their favored media outlets, saying it wasn't a big deal (being factually incorrect), as long as the overall notion was in the right direction.
The 2nd Amendment dramatically raises the cost of oppression. No longer can they ask you firmly to get in the truck and whisk you away. The political calculus changes if they know they must make loud noises and scatter some corpses in order to do certain things.
Who is the final authority on what qualifies? You say "enough people", but it seems a HUGE number of people isn't enough since the millions of people across the world who see the hammer & sickle as a symbol of hate have yet had their feelings acknowledged. Does it require something else? Perhaps those millions don't have the correct political alignment... maybe that's it.
Fact: Paris Agreement was a hard-fought compromise but was largely a symbolic gesture because it had to be such a compromise to get the entire Earth to agree on something.
On this basis, there are two arguments. Pro Paris Agreement: It is a step in the right direction -- a global recognition of the problem -- though real progress would require immensely more than a symbolic gesture such as this.
Anti Paris Agreement (which seems to be Trump's position AFAIK): The US gave too many concessions, and allowed too many loopholes for other nations, to achieve what is largely a symbolic gesture.
Wait, let me see if I understand you correctly. Disparaging white/black people's whiteness/blackness = violation Disparaging white/black people's behavior = not a violation
In 2015, we saw the main stream press incessantly report on the shrinking of the American middle class, muckrake every white-on-black police shooting like it was 1950's Alabama nation-wide, and breathlessly warn us of the racism/sexism/rape "EPIDEMICS" in our schools, our government, our industries.
In 2016, right after Trump began talking about the decline of America, we saw the same main stream press nearly crack their collective spines bending over backwards so abruptly to now convince us that today's America is the greatest that has ever been.
1: DNC staffer falls for a phishing scam ??? ??? ??? ??? n: Voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin choose Trump over Clinton -- who decided to campaign elsewhere believing those states to be shoo-ins
What goes in the blanks? Surely, the people of those states didn't go "Oh Russia hacked a server, I'd better switch my vote!" What happened, what changed their votes?
American democracy was attacked when the secret ethical misconduct of the DNC was revealed to the public. In order to preserve American democracy, misdeeds must remain guarded and kept from the public eye.
If they don't allow comments, I tend not to visit them as often. Despite the spam, partisanship, and personal attacks, comments sections are valuable to me as places where journalistic spin can be called out. I've lost count of the number of times I've read news articles linked to scientific studies, and the author is totally BTFO by a commenter who actually took the time to read the research paper.
So Matt Furie demolishes his own house because the media wouldn't stop bugging him about how Twitter nazis were building similar looking houses and throwing wild parties in them. Despite the ADL explicitly stating that "the majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted", pro-Clinton journalists continued in their all-out effort to remove this thorn from Clinton's side. Their tactic, as usual, was to divide an unwelcome movement by shaming those susceptible to the fallacy of guilt by association. Any author could have just said "fanfic isn't my problem". Of course, the media would not have stopped until the guilt struck home so who knows how long one could withstand them. In the end some non-racist Pepe fans stopped having innocent giggles, and Furie took a sledgehammer to his creation, all merely to publicly gesture their CONCERN with baddies having had fun in tangentially the same way -- essentially handing over their personal autonomy to hand-wringing busybodies who write glorified blogs.
A: Look at this Pepe meme with a swastika armband, are you CONCERNED that you're also spreading Pepe memes on twitter?
B: My memes have no Nazi iconography, they're Smug Pepes with poofy blond hair that symbolize Trump's shameless trolling of the media
A: Yes, but they're both frogs and both derivatives of Pepe. Are you CONCERNED?
B:...there's no connection except the frog and...
A: We're not SAYING its racist, but here's a bunch of articles that heavily imply it. Are you CONCERNED now? Will you publicly condemn it so we can play a soundbite of you accepting our worldview while implicitly echoing Clinton's assertions about her opposition? [ad nauseam]
Slashdot Mirror
The words "biologically suited" never appears in the essay.
He also never said some people were "neurotic". He said: "Women, on average, have more [...] neuroticism", linking to Wikipedia on sex differences in neuroticism (which does have research citations for those who want to hand-wave Wikipedia), and further explaining the term to mean "higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", NOT the derogatory colloquial meaning which people have, either ignorantly or maliciously, interpreted it to mean.
He prefaced his words with this:
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions.
Not since September 2014, if you know what I mean.
It's clear you didn't read the essay.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...
Notice how he goes out of his way to point out that "there's overlap between men and women" when talking about averages. Now, read the news articles and commentary which completely mischaracterize him.
The word "neurotic" does not exist in the essay. He wrote this:
Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:
-Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
-Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
-Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
-This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs
Taken from: https://motherboard.vice.com/e...
He was the epitome of diplomatic civility in making his point. People read nefarious intent through their own biases and paranoia.
The guy didn't even identify himself as a conservative. He only mentions them to make a point about the echo chamber. He identified himself as a liberal, and explicitly said he was PRO-diversity. His criticism was the WAY in which diversity is pursued at Google. Read the essay, he said it is right to encourage women into STEM, and to dismantle barriers, but he says that a 50/50 expectation is unrealistic based on the research he cites (which Gizmodo left out).
Heres's a guess:
- Journalists would NOT label his writing an "anti-business manifesto/screed"
- Journalists would, in fact, be sympathetic to him, write human-interest articles about his "journey", and work on long-form investigative stories about the oppressive anti-free-speech monoculture that has been developing on Wall Street.
- Neither those journalists nor their audience would bring up how "it isn't the government doing it so it's not a free speech issue"
Even after several news organizations apologized and retracted their statements about "17 intelligence organizations all agreeing", Politifact continued to offer apologetics for their favored media outlets, saying it wasn't a big deal (being factually incorrect), as long as the overall notion was in the right direction.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Contrast this to the near anal-retentive literal manner in which PolitiFact analyzes other stories.
Modify your hosts file so everything in the block list points to 0.0.0.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Enjoy your visit! Now don't let it happen to your country.
American journalists do it on their company's dime.
The 2nd Amendment dramatically raises the cost of oppression. No longer can they ask you firmly to get in the truck and whisk you away. The political calculus changes if they know they must make loud noises and scatter some corpses in order to do certain things.
...and it builds up, it festers, and it finds an outlet sooner or later.
Who is the final authority on what qualifies? You say "enough people", but it seems a HUGE number of people isn't enough since the millions of people across the world who see the hammer & sickle as a symbol of hate have yet had their feelings acknowledged. Does it require something else? Perhaps those millions don't have the correct political alignment... maybe that's it.
entire room wrapped in tape
Here are the memes. https://thetab.com/us/2017/06/...
Edgy, but not hateful.
Fact: Paris Agreement was a hard-fought compromise but was largely a symbolic gesture because it had to be such a compromise to get the entire Earth to agree on something.
On this basis, there are two arguments.
Pro Paris Agreement: It is a step in the right direction -- a global recognition of the problem -- though real progress would require immensely more than a symbolic gesture such as this.
Anti Paris Agreement (which seems to be Trump's position AFAIK): The US gave too many concessions, and allowed too many loopholes for other nations, to achieve what is largely a symbolic gesture.
Wait, let me see if I understand you correctly.
Disparaging white/black people's whiteness/blackness = violation
Disparaging white/black people's behavior = not a violation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2015, we saw the main stream press incessantly report on the shrinking of the American middle class, muckrake every white-on-black police shooting like it was 1950's Alabama nation-wide, and breathlessly warn us of the racism/sexism/rape "EPIDEMICS" in our schools, our government, our industries.
In 2016, right after Trump began talking about the decline of America, we saw the same main stream press nearly crack their collective spines bending over backwards so abruptly to now convince us that today's America is the greatest that has ever been.
1: DNC staffer falls for a phishing scam
???
???
???
???
n: Voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin choose Trump over Clinton -- who decided to campaign elsewhere believing those states to be shoo-ins
What goes in the blanks? Surely, the people of those states didn't go "Oh Russia hacked a server, I'd better switch my vote!" What happened, what changed their votes?
American democracy was attacked when the secret ethical misconduct of the DNC was revealed to the public. In order to preserve American democracy, misdeeds must remain guarded and kept from the public eye.
If they don't allow comments, I tend not to visit them as often. Despite the spam, partisanship, and personal attacks, comments sections are valuable to me as places where journalistic spin can be called out. I've lost count of the number of times I've read news articles linked to scientific studies, and the author is totally BTFO by a commenter who actually took the time to read the research paper.
"You need to redirect money to my social 'science' projects, or you hate women and poor people."
If the deep state doesn't exist, then why are there wars to protect the petrodollar system no matter which party is in charge?
So Matt Furie demolishes his own house because the media wouldn't stop bugging him about how Twitter nazis were building similar looking houses and throwing wild parties in them. Despite the ADL explicitly stating that "the majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted", pro-Clinton journalists continued in their all-out effort to remove this thorn from Clinton's side. Their tactic, as usual, was to divide an unwelcome movement by shaming those susceptible to the fallacy of guilt by association. Any author could have just said "fanfic isn't my problem". Of course, the media would not have stopped until the guilt struck home so who knows how long one could withstand them. In the end some non-racist Pepe fans stopped having innocent giggles, and Furie took a sledgehammer to his creation, all merely to publicly gesture their CONCERN with baddies having had fun in tangentially the same way -- essentially handing over their personal autonomy to hand-wringing busybodies who write glorified blogs.
A: Look at this Pepe meme with a swastika armband, are you CONCERNED that you're also spreading Pepe memes on twitter?
B: My memes have no Nazi iconography, they're Smug Pepes with poofy blond hair that symbolize Trump's shameless trolling of the media
A: Yes, but they're both frogs and both derivatives of Pepe. Are you CONCERNED?
B: ...there's no connection except the frog and...
A: We're not SAYING its racist, but here's a bunch of articles that heavily imply it. Are you CONCERNED now? Will you publicly condemn it so we can play a soundbite of you accepting our worldview while implicitly echoing Clinton's assertions about her opposition?
[ad nauseam]