Sure, an insane majority of you aren't. Plenty of you are, by implication. The post I was responding to, in case you may have missed it, was implying the white nationalists were not violent and the leftists were. I was asking, where's the nuance. I think you also demonstrated that you can't appreciate the nuance. In essence, you implied agreement with me while misunderstanding what I was saying.
Does this argument apply to ISIS? Is there no cultural group so terrible that we can't all agree it's not bad for a private company to refuse service to? Are you sure refusing them service doesn't hurt their ability to spread and reinforce their ideas?
This isn't a college de-platforming some people. This is a company choosing not to host Nazis. I think we can still have a nice market of ideas without encouraging companies to platform Nazis.
Have you ever met a real Nazi? I have. And they aren't like in the movies. They are by and large likable people who love their country. I would never be a Nazi myself. For one thing, I'm not a joiner. But it is unfair to demonize them. They are just every day work-a-day Joes. Leave them alone.
Yes, they're people. We don't have to hate them to hold them accountable for what they support. We don't have to give them protection from being removed from a private company's service, either.
Calling every association choice by a private company "virtue signalling" demeans the meaning of the phrase. Virtue signalling goes to intent, and claims about intent should be carefully made.
It strains credulity to think that you made an argument that white nationalists are not violent. If your claim is that the guy who ran a car into people was an outlier, nevermind that it was well documented that other marchers were violent, then where is your nuance when considering left-leaning protesters?
In 2017, more men than women are graduating with CS degrees. Also, in 2017, scientists are expected to understanding sample sizes when drawing generalizations. Also, in 2017, scientists are expected to not to straw man an argument. Damore didn't say that women couldn't hack it, he just said there were fewer to hire and proposed some reasons why that may be. If you don't understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, you probably shouldn't wade into this argument.
I've been really vocal about my disappointment in google firing James Damore. Let's use James Damore's words to address what you're saying.
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
In other words, it's possible that the reason there aren't very many conservatives working for google has more to do from the distribution it hires from, than any sort of bigotry. Population density is well correlated with liberalism and Google tends to hire from urban or suburban areas.
I agree they've increased the hostility in the environment, however your hypothesis for why there may be so few Trump supporters in the parking lot is not a slam dunk.
This is honestly probably true if the list one is looking for is "Best Authentic Curry Restaurants". Sure, some white man out there may have devoted his life to curry, but it's going to be easier to develop expertise in culturally specific lists if the writer grew up in that culture.
Where is the line between manifesto and positive suggestion? I think it's a incisive suggestion when you agree and a manifesto when you disagree. The language you use is not precise and prejudices the reader to believe it was in Google's best interests to fire James Damore.
It's also a business concern when the company fires people for bringing up hard truths, or at least difficult questions. In the short term, it may prevent some firebrands from torching things and maybe some people feel more comfortable, in the long term it may cultivate polarization and an atmosphere of tension.
Does it matter if it's a rant or not? Why did you mention that? The conclusion may be suspect, yet isn't it worth debating? If you don't feel that it's worth debating, then you are left with the opinion that anyone who wants to have the debate is a bigot, which I don't agree with.
If someone doesn't already agree with you, but could, do you honestly feel the best way to convert them is by peer pressure? Debate is the only way to gain rational converts.
In general, squashing debate by over-reacting (such as firing someone) tends to be chilling, even if they were "ranting", and that creates a hostile work environment for empiricists, people who care more about truth than about justice.
Is my speculation more reasonable than your speculation? (that he was campaigning and flooding?) At least my speculation is written in a reasonably neutral tone. The larger point is that you were using prejudicial language to describe his behavior. Disagree with that?
Your use of the words campaign and flooding is invective and misleading. I'm sure when he shared it on some internal messaging platform, he expected it to largely be ignored, as most unsolicited opinions are.
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
-- excerpt from James Damore's memo.
This is a political idea and the theme of the memo. It's saying, we need to look to reality to understand what's going on. If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
We've gotten to the point where Google thinks that asking tough questions and seeking answers is less valuable than ideological conformity. Even without legal repercussions, this is not a good look for Google. It undermines the idea that tech is a bastion of the enlightenment.
A way that is completely dishonest should be treated as fraud.
How is it any different from a strike? Just because Uber automated its union negotiation doesn't make it immoral. How is their collective action fundamentally different from a union?
The president has taught us that punching down is normal, modern, and presidential. I think CNN is just following the president's lead. Bullying begets bullying.
Slashdot Mirror
An insane majority of us aren't.
Sure, an insane majority of you aren't. Plenty of you are, by implication. The post I was responding to, in case you may have missed it, was implying the white nationalists were not violent and the leftists were. I was asking, where's the nuance. I think you also demonstrated that you can't appreciate the nuance. In essence, you implied agreement with me while misunderstanding what I was saying.
Now go fuck yourself.
Does this argument apply to ISIS? Is there no cultural group so terrible that we can't all agree it's not bad for a private company to refuse service to? Are you sure refusing them service doesn't hurt their ability to spread and reinforce their ideas?
This isn't a college de-platforming some people. This is a company choosing not to host Nazis. I think we can still have a nice market of ideas without encouraging companies to platform Nazis.
Have you ever met a real Nazi? I have. And they aren't like in the movies. They are by and large likable people who love their country. I would never be a Nazi myself. For one thing, I'm not a joiner. But it is unfair to demonize them. They are just every day work-a-day Joes. Leave them alone.
Yes, they're people. We don't have to hate them to hold them accountable for what they support. We don't have to give them protection from being removed from a private company's service, either.
Calling every association choice by a private company "virtue signalling" demeans the meaning of the phrase. Virtue signalling goes to intent, and claims about intent should be carefully made.
It strains credulity to think that you made an argument that white nationalists are not violent. If your claim is that the guy who ran a car into people was an outlier, nevermind that it was well documented that other marchers were violent, then where is your nuance when considering left-leaning protesters?
News At 11
If he got fired for drama, it wasn't any he started.
Thank you for sharing this.
I was looking for a quippy way to say this. I don't think I could do better. Bravo.
In 2017, more men than women are graduating with CS degrees. Also, in 2017, scientists are expected to understanding sample sizes when drawing generalizations. Also, in 2017, scientists are expected to not to straw man an argument. Damore didn't say that women couldn't hack it, he just said there were fewer to hire and proposed some reasons why that may be. If you don't understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome, you probably shouldn't wade into this argument.
I've been really vocal about my disappointment in google firing James Damore. Let's use James Damore's words to address what you're saying.
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
In other words, it's possible that the reason there aren't very many conservatives working for google has more to do from the distribution it hires from, than any sort of bigotry. Population density is well correlated with liberalism and Google tends to hire from urban or suburban areas.
I agree they've increased the hostility in the environment, however your hypothesis for why there may be so few Trump supporters in the parking lot is not a slam dunk.
Indeed, my first thought is, why would anyone show up who has a Wrong Thought? Nobody wants to get fired.
This is honestly probably true if the list one is looking for is "Best Authentic Curry Restaurants". Sure, some white man out there may have devoted his life to curry, but it's going to be easier to develop expertise in culturally specific lists if the writer grew up in that culture.
If it's so easy to knock down, knock it down. Clearly there is hunger for debate on the issue. Firing people just ends the debate.
Where is the line between manifesto and positive suggestion? I think it's a incisive suggestion when you agree and a manifesto when you disagree. The language you use is not precise and prejudices the reader to believe it was in Google's best interests to fire James Damore.
It's also a business concern when the company fires people for bringing up hard truths, or at least difficult questions. In the short term, it may prevent some firebrands from torching things and maybe some people feel more comfortable, in the long term it may cultivate polarization and an atmosphere of tension.
As I read the memo, it acknowledge that sexism was an issue. Even in the first paragraph.
I think not rationally responding to someone's point is becoming rampant in tech.
Does it matter if it's a rant or not? Why did you mention that? The conclusion may be suspect, yet isn't it worth debating? If you don't feel that it's worth debating, then you are left with the opinion that anyone who wants to have the debate is a bigot, which I don't agree with.
If someone doesn't already agree with you, but could, do you honestly feel the best way to convert them is by peer pressure? Debate is the only way to gain rational converts.
In general, squashing debate by over-reacting (such as firing someone) tends to be chilling, even if they were "ranting", and that creates a hostile work environment for empiricists, people who care more about truth than about justice.
Is my speculation more reasonable than your speculation? (that he was campaigning and flooding?) At least my speculation is written in a reasonably neutral tone. The larger point is that you were using prejudicial language to describe his behavior. Disagree with that?
Your use of the words campaign and flooding is invective and misleading. I'm sure when he shared it on some internal messaging platform, he expected it to largely be ignored, as most unsolicited opinions are.
He never argued for treating women as less capable at technology. Did you even read the memo?
His falsifiable claims were well supported by the science. http://quillette.com/2017/08/0...
By firing him, they've created a hostile work environment for empiricists.
When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions.
-- excerpt from James Damore's memo.
This is a political idea and the theme of the memo. It's saying, we need to look to reality to understand what's going on. If you think that believing the science is sexist, then call me a sexist, but it's also a political statement to want to make decisions based on the science.
We've gotten to the point where Google thinks that asking tough questions and seeking answers is less valuable than ideological conformity. Even without legal repercussions, this is not a good look for Google. It undermines the idea that tech is a bastion of the enlightenment.
A way that is completely dishonest should be treated as fraud.
How is it any different from a strike? Just because Uber automated its union negotiation doesn't make it immoral. How is their collective action fundamentally different from a union?
So the bandwidth per subscriber is best at T-Mobile?
My girlfriend has been unsuccessfully mugged 3 times in NYC, in two different boroughs, and one of those times it was an old friend.
Phoebe, is that you?!
The president has taught us that punching down is normal, modern, and presidential. I think CNN is just following the president's lead. Bullying begets bullying.