Eventually, the pendulum will swing back and the force it swings back on the smug, self-righteous inquisitors will be a function of how much force they put into the swing when it was on their side. The leaders celebrating this today could very well find themselves facing serious retribution.
People forget how quickly it can swing too. I recall a few years ago when Obama was in office how quick liberals were to jump on if you don't toe our line on gay marriage we will withhold Federal funds. Fast forward a few years and the liberals are out of power and sanctuary cities were under threat of having Federal funds withheld. Funny how then it was suddenly immoral to withhold funds. Since the root cause of the instability is not being addressed (declining middle class / severe inequality / too much social change in a short span) expect more oscillations. Also expect that whatever you do to others will be done to you in time. The moral of the story is to not be too mean to others, don't be so quick to condemn and try and punish.
People who smugly claim to only be intolerant of intolerance (sometimes stated intolerables), without a hint of sarcasm, will never cease to amaze me. It's like they can't follow the most basic logical premise.
Are you really publicly hating on people based on their political opinion?
If someone says "I'm a Nazi, I directly support the policies of Hitler" then I have no problem hating on them.
Fair enough. Of course the vast majority of people being called Nazis currently do not meet that definition. They just happen to be anywhere to the right of what the Democratic party dogma.
Backwards barbarian countries don't GAF, and are just out to smash and grab as much as they can. There will be no sea life, the oceans will die, we will die, but they won't care, because a few well-connected mafia types got to make a bit of easy money.
Long live American and Western hegemony. Because it may be the last line of defence between us, and oblivion triggered by greedy, selfish barbarians.
I know that it's trendy to blame the west but the most irresponsible fishing is coming from Asia.
With the term 'Nazi' being thrown around so casually these days I can only think of Inigo Montoya saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Hush now, you know that you can't challenge a protected class. It's anti-semetic of you to point out the obvious you Nazi.
PS - yes I'm using sarcasm, yes your facts are correct and yes the Fed is a scam that operates in plain daylight.
But unlike Nazi Germany, our economy is actually doing quite well.
The economy might be doing quite well but since the 1% do not pay their share of taxes then the government borrows ever more. Debt can take down a country, not unlike a 1930's Germany.
Spoke like a true alt-right suburbanite. How would you know how children in poor neighborhoods eat? Scumbag.
I can say with confidence from a family member who used to teach in Lancaster, a true ghetto, that McDonalds was the biggest beneficiary of Michelle Obamas push to make school lunch be healthy and unappealing. He found it amusing, but I guess he must have been an alt-right suburbanite scumbag for observing reality.
Because the rich make the rules and love a good tax dodge. The close cousin to this is donating to each others charities in similar amounts for tax free perks.
I think what everyone is getting at is that this is a scam. It looks like charity when really it's all about tax liability with the added bonus of virtue signalling. Moreover he still controls the wealth. Until it has been given away, not merely pledged, there shouldn't be any benefits.
How is this modded "insightful"? White males are not oppressed. I am a white male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible liberal places, run by leftists, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly. I know a lot of liberal democrats, and none of them want white males to be treated badly.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
I'm guess two things - first is that somehow you don't take all the "white people are bad" stuff personally. I've known many a liberal guy who when I say I'm so tired of the white male being the classic punching bag they sigh and say yeah it's probably over used never fully understanding that *they personally are the punching bag*. It's a fascinating thing to see really. Like a beat dog that has been broken they cower lest they ever be accused of being a racist. Second you said "intentionally", which is a big blank check. My observation is that a liberal is as biased against a redneck just as much or more as a KKK member is against PoC. Hate is wrong, regardless of race.
So when one racist manager hires only whites, you don't want anyone noticing?
Based on your wording I suspect that you might only consider it a sin if a white male does it, since an all [protected class] company is trendy, empowering, and accepted. The most common obvious racially based hiring I've seen is Asians - especially Chinese or Vietnamese. And I've seen *a lot* of companies.
You also need to consider diversity. If your in a fire, it is generally not one lone hero who will come to the rescue, but rather a team. And a diverse team can notice things that a non-diverse team cannot.
A diverse team is actually less of a "team". Perhaps a better question is to ask if diversity is worth the effort. Yes there is some research that diversity helps in some situations. And it hurts in other situations. The levels of bias by those doing the research is also a cause for concern as it is an article of faith among the humanities that diversity is a must do. This makes me suspect that they over emphasis the benefits while understating the drawbacks. If you want an example of this read the account of the classic liberal sociologist whose research conclusively showed this (citation below). He essentially found out that diversity is not always good and then tried to disprove this every which way because that outcome was not acceptable. He eventually did publish his results but not without first citing how important diversity was for other reasons and how the impact negative may lesson over time.
This question has been asked since the 60's but shows no signs of wearing out soon. I would be willing to jump to no special rules for anyone this moment - anyone with me on that?
In the end, he still says his gender has the edge in technical fields. He can couch the claim all he wants, add all the qualifiers he can think of, but his ultiamte statement was "people with an XY chromosome are more likely to be good in technical fields than people with XX chromosomes." Couple that with the fact that Google does have diversity hiring quotas, he's heavily inferring that at least some of his female peers don't deserve the job they're in.
So he's a modern day Galileo - correct but you weren't supposed to contradict dogma. Hiring quotas mean that you aren't getting the best candidates, because the best candidates wouldn't need quotas. Sadly these quotas exist in situations where lives are at stake too like firefighters. I don't care about quotas, if there's a fire I want the best qualified person to rescue me, not a quota who is merely "good enough".
It does NOT MATTER if what he said was true, well, sourced, worthy of discussion, etc......
That's all there is to it.
You really should think about your ethics if the truth is not important. I for one wouldn't want to ever be quoted as saying that someone can be correct, well sourced, and it still doesn't matter.
Considering that conservatives had to invent their own definition of truthiness and rely on alternative facts to create a world view that conforms to their narrative, you really can just shut up.
In truth both liberals and conservatives have made things up - see diversity as an example. The data points to women and men being different. Shocking to nobody who has ever been around kids yet consider heresy to point out that boys and girls are actually different, have different capabilities, and different interests. This leads to, shocking I know, differences in career choices. If you have eyes you can look around and see this, this is as obvious as the sun rising. Yet somehow it's made out to be taboo to state the obvious. This is why I compare diversity / affirmative action to global warming. Liberals ignore all evidence about social issues outright, not unlike conservatives who ignore all evidence on global warming outright. This is why independents like me look at both sides, neither has a monopoly on good points.
He got fired because he populated an idea that seemed to be speaking for a majority of male Google engineers, and that viewpoint was very harmful to Google's brand.
I suspect that this blowing up is also harmful to Google's brand as well as their ability to attract men in general. I wouldn't want to work for a company that openly is looking to favor groups I didn't belong to.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Affirmative action is to liberals what global warming is to conservatives - it provokes a knee jerk reaction that is dismissed outright. The levels of discrimination to get such large gender imbalances in various fields would be impressive. Just as getting several consecutive years of "100 year" temperature events seems beyond improbable so does a scheme where women and certain minorities (though not Asians) are kept out all while trying unprecedented efforts to recruit them. A more logical person might think square peg / round hole, but as that goes against the dogma. Moreover the usual excuses of good paying jobs being reserved only for men doesn't hold water since other professions that are women dominated yet pay well such as nursing or speech pathologists exist. Speech pathologists are 96% women - they must hate men to a shockingly high degree. Or maybe there are other reasons just as tech has other reasons.
Nobody will admit to quotas. Everyone says that they don't have quotas but then along comes the Feds, or a Jesse Jackson style shake down group, and essentially forces you to have quotas. Everyone can agree that quotas are bad for a number of reasons but if anything less than a perfect reflection of society at large is required then you have quotas. Silicon Valley told Jesse and crew to pound sand in the 90's but it looks like they will succumb fully to the latest version of a familiar scam.
There's a huge part of me that says if you can't beat them then join them and go after all the various jobs that are women dominated and spread rhetoric about how they hate men and discriminate against them but my instincts tell me that it wouldn't work both ways. "Affirmative action" is devoid of logic and is almost by definition about double standards.
The US may not have made Angela Merkel deaf (yet). But deafening a few diplomats is pretty minor compared to a lot of the things the US has done covertly.
So based on the theory that one wrong allows another do we get to nuke North Korea for being so evil to its citizens? Or can we agree that two wrongs does not make a right?
If you're a white male and you actually feel the need to 'protect yourself' then you're exactly the sort of fuckhead everyone's railing against.
Sounds like a white male needs protection from you actually. All jokes aside I've heard for decades a steady stream of white people are responsible for all that's wrong with the world. Yet I pay my taxes (I'm not a 1%er that offshores everything), I don't commit crimes, and I contribute to society. In short, I'm a good customer for whichever country I reside in. Yet because I'm white I'm expected to accept guilt for things I didn't do and help others for wrongs committed to their distant relatives. I reject that plain and simple. Call me a monster / racist / deplorable / whatever new term the SJWs think of but I am not responsible for the past. I am responsible for myself and I pay *my* debts and make the world a better place in an ever so small way.
Slashdot Mirror
Eventually, the pendulum will swing back and the force it swings back on the smug, self-righteous inquisitors will be a function of how much force they put into the swing when it was on their side. The leaders celebrating this today could very well find themselves facing serious retribution.
People forget how quickly it can swing too. I recall a few years ago when Obama was in office how quick liberals were to jump on if you don't toe our line on gay marriage we will withhold Federal funds. Fast forward a few years and the liberals are out of power and sanctuary cities were under threat of having Federal funds withheld. Funny how then it was suddenly immoral to withhold funds. Since the root cause of the instability is not being addressed (declining middle class / severe inequality / too much social change in a short span) expect more oscillations. Also expect that whatever you do to others will be done to you in time. The moral of the story is to not be too mean to others, don't be so quick to condemn and try and punish.
People who smugly claim to only be intolerant of intolerance (sometimes stated intolerables), without a hint of sarcasm, will never cease to amaze me. It's like they can't follow the most basic logical premise.
Are you really publicly hating on people based on their political opinion?
If someone says "I'm a Nazi, I directly support the policies of Hitler" then I have no problem hating on them.
Fair enough. Of course the vast majority of people being called Nazis currently do not meet that definition. They just happen to be anywhere to the right of what the Democratic party dogma.
Backwards barbarian countries don't GAF, and are just out to smash and grab as much as they can. There will be no sea life, the oceans will die, we will die, but they won't care, because a few well-connected mafia types got to make a bit of easy money.
Long live American and Western hegemony. Because it may be the last line of defence between us, and oblivion triggered by greedy, selfish barbarians.
I know that it's trendy to blame the west but the most irresponsible fishing is coming from Asia.
...And people get hungry and thirsty, they go where the food is and fight for it.
Sounds like a wall on our Southern border isn't such a bad idea
One Nazi gone, one to go.
With the term 'Nazi' being thrown around so casually these days I can only think of Inigo Montoya saying "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Hush now, you know that you can't challenge a protected class. It's anti-semetic of you to point out the obvious you Nazi. PS - yes I'm using sarcasm, yes your facts are correct and yes the Fed is a scam that operates in plain daylight.
But unlike Nazi Germany, our economy is actually doing quite well.
The economy might be doing quite well but since the 1% do not pay their share of taxes then the government borrows ever more. Debt can take down a country, not unlike a 1930's Germany.
Spoke like a true alt-right suburbanite. How would you know how children in poor neighborhoods eat? Scumbag.
I can say with confidence from a family member who used to teach in Lancaster, a true ghetto, that McDonalds was the biggest beneficiary of Michelle Obamas push to make school lunch be healthy and unappealing. He found it amusing, but I guess he must have been an alt-right suburbanite scumbag for observing reality.
Why is it legal to donate to your own charity?
Because the rich make the rules and love a good tax dodge. The close cousin to this is donating to each others charities in similar amounts for tax free perks.
I think what everyone is getting at is that this is a scam. It looks like charity when really it's all about tax liability with the added bonus of virtue signalling. Moreover he still controls the wealth. Until it has been given away, not merely pledged, there shouldn't be any benefits.
How is this modded "insightful"? White males are not oppressed. I am a white male living and working in one of those supposedly terrible liberal places, run by leftists, and I have never faced meaningful discrimination. I have never been in, seen, or heard of a workplace that intentionally tried to treat white males badly. I know a lot of liberal democrats, and none of them want white males to be treated badly.
The people I see complaining about the treatment of white males are people trying to invent a villain to blame their failures on.
I'm guess two things - first is that somehow you don't take all the "white people are bad" stuff personally. I've known many a liberal guy who when I say I'm so tired of the white male being the classic punching bag they sigh and say yeah it's probably over used never fully understanding that *they personally are the punching bag*. It's a fascinating thing to see really. Like a beat dog that has been broken they cower lest they ever be accused of being a racist. Second you said "intentionally", which is a big blank check. My observation is that a liberal is as biased against a redneck just as much or more as a KKK member is against PoC. Hate is wrong, regardless of race.
So when one racist manager hires only whites, you don't want anyone noticing?
Based on your wording I suspect that you might only consider it a sin if a white male does it, since an all [protected class] company is trendy, empowering, and accepted. The most common obvious racially based hiring I've seen is Asians - especially Chinese or Vietnamese. And I've seen *a lot* of companies.
It's not a zero sum game
Actually for a great many things it is a zero sum game. For example getting hired, getting promotions, college admissions, government contracts, etc.
You also need to consider diversity. If your in a fire, it is generally not one lone hero who will come to the rescue, but rather a team. And a diverse team can notice things that a non-diverse team cannot.
A diverse team is actually less of a "team". Perhaps a better question is to ask if diversity is worth the effort. Yes there is some research that diversity helps in some situations. And it hurts in other situations. The levels of bias by those doing the research is also a cause for concern as it is an article of faith among the humanities that diversity is a must do. This makes me suspect that they over emphasis the benefits while understating the drawbacks. If you want an example of this read the account of the classic liberal sociologist whose research conclusively showed this (citation below). He essentially found out that diversity is not always good and then tried to disprove this every which way because that outcome was not acceptable. He eventually did publish his results but not without first citing how important diversity was for other reasons and how the impact negative may lesson over time.
citation: http://archive.boston.com/news...
When will their victim card get worn out?
This question has been asked since the 60's but shows no signs of wearing out soon. I would be willing to jump to no special rules for anyone this moment - anyone with me on that?
In the end, he still says his gender has the edge in technical fields. He can couch the claim all he wants, add all the qualifiers he can think of, but his ultiamte statement was "people with an XY chromosome are more likely to be good in technical fields than people with XX chromosomes." Couple that with the fact that Google does have diversity hiring quotas, he's heavily inferring that at least some of his female peers don't deserve the job they're in.
So he's a modern day Galileo - correct but you weren't supposed to contradict dogma. Hiring quotas mean that you aren't getting the best candidates, because the best candidates wouldn't need quotas. Sadly these quotas exist in situations where lives are at stake too like firefighters. I don't care about quotas, if there's a fire I want the best qualified person to rescue me, not a quota who is merely "good enough".
It does NOT MATTER if what he said was true, well, sourced, worthy of discussion, etc......
That's all there is to it.
You really should think about your ethics if the truth is not important. I for one wouldn't want to ever be quoted as saying that someone can be correct, well sourced, and it still doesn't matter.
Considering that conservatives had to invent their own definition of truthiness and rely on alternative facts to create a world view that conforms to their narrative, you really can just shut up.
In truth both liberals and conservatives have made things up - see diversity as an example. The data points to women and men being different. Shocking to nobody who has ever been around kids yet consider heresy to point out that boys and girls are actually different, have different capabilities, and different interests. This leads to, shocking I know, differences in career choices. If you have eyes you can look around and see this, this is as obvious as the sun rising. Yet somehow it's made out to be taboo to state the obvious. This is why I compare diversity / affirmative action to global warming. Liberals ignore all evidence about social issues outright, not unlike conservatives who ignore all evidence on global warming outright. This is why independents like me look at both sides, neither has a monopoly on good points.
He got fired because he populated an idea that seemed to be speaking for a majority of male Google engineers, and that viewpoint was very harmful to Google's brand.
I suspect that this blowing up is also harmful to Google's brand as well as their ability to attract men in general. I wouldn't want to work for a company that openly is looking to favor groups I didn't belong to.
Bullshit. He was lecturing. And really, even if he's right, what message is he sending to his female colleagues, that somehow his male brain gives him at least a statistical edge over them?
Is Google being harmed by its gender policies? Was he? At the end of the day, one presumes he was hired as a software developer or engineer, and not to write screeds against his employer's hiring practices.
There's evidence pointing in both directions, and the jury is still out on how much of the gender disparity in areas like the STEM fields derives from biological/cognitive differences and cultural differences. Unless this is an area for which he actually has sufficient background to back up his statements, not only is he well out of his own field, but he is very much encouraging stereotypical sentiment.
Affirmative action is to liberals what global warming is to conservatives - it provokes a knee jerk reaction that is dismissed outright. The levels of discrimination to get such large gender imbalances in various fields would be impressive. Just as getting several consecutive years of "100 year" temperature events seems beyond improbable so does a scheme where women and certain minorities (though not Asians) are kept out all while trying unprecedented efforts to recruit them. A more logical person might think square peg / round hole, but as that goes against the dogma. Moreover the usual excuses of good paying jobs being reserved only for men doesn't hold water since other professions that are women dominated yet pay well such as nursing or speech pathologists exist. Speech pathologists are 96% women - they must hate men to a shockingly high degree. Or maybe there are other reasons just as tech has other reasons.
and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There's a huge part of me that says if you can't beat them then join them and go after all the various jobs that are women dominated and spread rhetoric about how they hate men and discriminate against them but my instincts tell me that it wouldn't work both ways. "Affirmative action" is devoid of logic and is almost by definition about double standards.
The US may not have made Angela Merkel deaf (yet). But deafening a few diplomats is pretty minor compared to a lot of the things the US has done covertly.
So based on the theory that one wrong allows another do we get to nuke North Korea for being so evil to its citizens? Or can we agree that two wrongs does not make a right?
If you're a white male and you actually feel the need to 'protect yourself' then you're exactly the sort of fuckhead everyone's railing against.
Sounds like a white male needs protection from you actually. All jokes aside I've heard for decades a steady stream of white people are responsible for all that's wrong with the world. Yet I pay my taxes (I'm not a 1%er that offshores everything), I don't commit crimes, and I contribute to society. In short, I'm a good customer for whichever country I reside in. Yet because I'm white I'm expected to accept guilt for things I didn't do and help others for wrongs committed to their distant relatives. I reject that plain and simple. Call me a monster / racist / deplorable / whatever new term the SJWs think of but I am not responsible for the past. I am responsible for myself and I pay *my* debts and make the world a better place in an ever so small way.