I feel sorry for you that you have no self awareness. I'm certain that you've surrounded yourself by people who are also brainwashed with re-defined words.
However, I'm glad that there are lots of people becoming aware of the fascistic tactics of antifa. You are a useful idiot for those who wish to divide us and cause civil unrest; your main characteristic is a gigantic propensity for cognitive dissonance. You are the true fascist.
This. Also, his concerns were *not* concerns about anything public. There are apparently internal practices within Google that bothered him, and that-- in his opinion-- were themselves discriminatory and possibly illegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you admit to being an SJW but are insulted when people call you that, then you are a conflicted human being who is looking for ways to be victimized.
Look, Damore points out that there are seminars and other resources made available to certain "groups" based on gender and race, to the exclusion of others. This is discrimination based on race and gender. To deny that is intellectually dishonest. Also, his certainty is based on well-researched subject matter. That the scientific conclusions reached are typically ignored as much as possible by the SJW culture, and when they come to light are labeled "hate facts," is disturbing.
You are very much oversimplifying his assertions. Have a look at the interview with Damore, which I'm guessing won't see the light of day in the legacy media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Also, the goal of a workplace is not "happiness." The goal is to produce a good or service with as much quality as possible, collect a paycheck, and live your life as you see fit. "Happiness" in the workplace is a bonus, whatever "happiness" even means. Is that intellectual fulfillment? Success? A nice office by the window?
Cut me a break. I love this bit, which immediately struck me as "brilliant" in that the audience they are pandering to typically have no senses of humor:
>> We did not exclude satire because many fake-news sources label their content as satirical, making the distinction problematic
And wow-- making the distinction problematic! The Left continues to reveal the disdain they have for the general public.
If you are triggered by this (i.e. teeing up cliche insults and unintelligent slogans) but still reading it, here is some advice: When someone with an agenda tells you *not to read something*, you should read it. You might just find yourself with a new understanding of the world.
(And no, Trump doesn't tell you to *not read* stuff. Actually, I think he's commenting on the death of legacy media quite nicely.)
I admire the civility of your argument, but am not convinced. The inferiority of musicians can easily, instantly, and objectively be noted in any type of audition. So any bigotry against women can be easily understood as a detriment to the success of such an orchestra.
Other professions, such as "computer scientist," can be invaded by good communicators who are good at using buzz words and know just enough to skate by during a mediocre interview; only later will their incompetence be discovered. Tack onto that Affirmative Action where quotas must be met, and standards will be lowered because the quality of the candidate is now subordinate to their "demographic value." Such a scenario can only lead to the decay of quality.
I believe that is one of the themes of the memo, and *not* to assert "the genetically inferiority of women."
>> they are often punished for being "bossy" or "shrill" So you are saying that women are *too afraid* to negotiate higher salaries because they don't want to be labeled?
>> are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends So you are saying that women can't actually *choose* on their own to spend their time doing "unpaid labor" as you call it (which may, scientifically speaking, be an actual biological imperative)? There are women who *do choose* this lifestyle of "unpaid labor"; and, in fact, are much more likely to be criticized by feminists who consider that choice a weakness.
>> more likely to speak up when they are under heavy stress and seek support for it So you are suggesting that women require more support than men?
If I had to guess, you are probably left-leaning? This *IS* coming from the Left.
I have attempted this discussion with my wife many times unsuccessfully: She has declared an infinitely unbreakable loyalty to the Democratic Party, based largely on her identity as a woman.* Her Party Loyalty, in turn, has given her a blind spot for criticism of The Left. Therefore, she asserts that, "I personally don't believe [crazy far-left SJW rhetoric], so what are you talking about?"
Well, the crazy SJW stuff is in the process of devouring the soul of the Democratic Party. The Google memo guy has noticed what essentially amounts to a fascistic anti-intellectual culture. This *IS* coming from the Left; sorry to burst your bubble by towing a "left vs. right" line. Unfortunately for those who might still try to distinguish "Radical Left" from "Democrats," Democrats have loudly, vocally, publicly, unequivocally embraced the Radical Left's fascistic enforcement of political correctness.
People interested in free speech and the free exchange of ideas are sick of that. To wit, there is lots of science supporting the very ideas that the Google Memo Guy asserts that seem to be dismissed within *this* discussion, with no rational explanation. It simply doesn't fit a politically correct narrative and, therefore, "must be wrong" (or stupid, or misogynistic, etc.).
Rational people who value freedom are sick of that reductionist shit. This guy deserves praise for verbalizing his frustration, which mirrors many, many others' frustrations.
* Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the 19th Ammendment of the US Constitution was introduced by a Republican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Unfortunately, the Mainstream Media have already enjoyed a monopoly on mindshare for a long time. The reality is that the mindshare is not only draining from the Mainstream Media, but also the Internet is cultivating independent journalism.
Independent journalism, unfettered by the fascist/propagandist/leftist narrative that went unchecked for so long, has all but completely obliterated that narrative and, therefore, the credibility of these Mainstream Media organizations.
So, this seems more like a cry from an industry that has traditionally banked on creditbility, but can no longer do so. Screw them. Out with the old, in with the new.
This. It's tremendously short-sighted to just raise the minimum wage. It inevitably makes jobs disappear. So there will be a few people for a short period of time who have more cash in hand, but-- assuming that their jobs are low-skilled and not meant to provide a *career*-- they'll soon be out of work, thus sucking money *out* of the economy, rather than *into* the economy.
The whole "fight for 15" is such a silly "feel good" issue for liberal elitists; and, like other economic issues, the elitists will ignore real-world results and make abstract excuses for any signs of failure.
Thus, prices on products and services rise, so the short term wage hike is quickly offset. Thus, low-skilled jobs are replaced with automation where possible. Thus, government interference in the economy has the opposite effect of what was intended. Thus, the "fight for fifteen" folks up their congnitive-dissonance-based rhetoric.
People working in unskilled jobs at the higher minimum wage will not live comfortably for long, because the increase in cost for their low-skill labor will push costs up for whatever service they are providing or product they are creating. In addition, if there is an opportunity to replace unskilled labor with automation, those jobs will simply disappear.
I wouldn't classify the consequences of "fight for 15" as "doom and gloom" as much as harmful government intervention that ends up having not only unintended consequences, but also the exact opposite effect that was intended in the first place.
It's really intellectually dishonest to invoke "Christianity" in this context. (Note: I do not consider myself a Christian.) Christianity has undergone a Reformation, and continues to do so. I get that the Bible has lots of questionable material-- and I get that there are still literalists-- but these are a minority of Christians and, further, a call to violence against non-believers has no place in that doctrine. Christianity has, indeed, "evolved."
On the other hand, it seems that many Muslims find themselves "stuck" in un-reformed flavors of their religion where speaking of reform can actually be dangerous. Violence, while not a prerogative of a majority of Muslims, is nevertheless a dominant and highly visible and encouraged component of that minority called "radical Islamists."
You mean we should leave decision making to elitist lawyers who want everything to be State run, and to legislate through litigation? Wow, that sounds great! I would hate to give anyone with real-world experience the ability to staff and run projects based on some kind of useless meritocracy!
Is "salary" really how you believe society measures merit? You don't believe that talent, skill, and/or productivity are naturally championed by civilized society? And that pay/profit/salary is a reward for this merit? Are you a self-hating Marxist elitist who is guilty about your wealth? Or, are you an impoverished prole who is envious of others' success and wealth?
Equality of opportunity is the correct equalizer, in my opinion, for any civilized society's progress. The best ideas rise to the top, with success as an incentive. This obsession with others' wealth, especially in a conversation about equality, is at best naive; and, at worst, an excuse for the poor to steal from the rich.
There will never, ever be an equality of outcome for human beings under any system, ever. Any mechanism that attempts to achieve this would necessitate the complete destruction of human nature. (The same human nature that drives technologists to press on with their work.)
Wrong-- US conservatism leans toward preserving the liberty afforded by the liberal principals on which the US was founded. The Left in the US wish to fascistically centralize power, legislating and regulating and outright strangling the freedom of the individual, which they would gladly-- if given the means-- enforce via authoritarian methods. See "Soviet Union" for a quick and easy example of this in action. See also "Venezuela."
Why do you think the Left are the ones these days who overtly oppose free speech?
The Anarchists are the useful idiots/soldiers of the Left who tear gas old ladies to oppose those who they disagree with. (Unless you mean the mythical notion that Socialism would evolve into a system where the state is no longer necessary, in which case nothing will bring you back from your dementia. Socialism always seems to derail once all of the country's resources have been depleted after short-term material gains of the unfortunate citizens within such a system, who then tend to riot against the state because their promised egalitarianism is a stupidly desirable religious dogma that is counter to Western civilization.)
Looks like a single politically motivated activist group. It is also involved with campaigns to stop smoking, to label alcoholic beverages with calorie information, and the "Health on the High Street" campaign, whose mission is described as to "...ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to curtail business practices which may undermine the public’s health."
In other words, their aim seems to be to increase government intervention—in this case, within the realm of social interaction amongst the proles.
I would interpret this as a thinly veiled attempt to justify some kind of policy to further police language on these platforms to protect those who might be triggered or otherwise require a safe space. It is also kind of a stretch to include YouTube with "social platforms," because that is much more oriented toward pulling desirable content than it is toward open discussion.
>> overall happiness and equality of a nation's citizenry
Um, these two concepts will never co-exist. You're advocating for a non-meritocratic society, where there is no incentive to succeed. If there is no incentive to succeed, there will be no advancements in peace, technology, or any of the other stuff you named. Reality doesn't mesh well with your Marxist ideas.
Ah, the old unoriginal and oft-debunked "Republicans are racist" argument. Good job. Too bad there is no "like" capability here, because this would surely get you lots. Seriously, though-- I challenge you to examine the racist-ness of your own post and then imagine how much racism would diminish if people like you would stop calling everyone a racist!
It's a shame that you have been hypnotized into caring *so much* about the tax returns. It is not at all related to his election nor performance as president; and is completely related to socialist shills who are trying every vector to "resist" Trump's presidency. Sorry, but his tax returns are only significant to butt-hurt loser socialists.
Do you remember Trump's President-Elect press conference where a spokesperson for his law firm gave contact information for anyone with questions about Trump's legal ties? If you willfully ignored this, that is your own foolish partisan ignorance. Nevertheless, if there are any *real* journalists left in the mainstream media, it seems that they have a distinct vector for researching any conflicts of interest involving Trump or his companies.
Trump will always look bad to willfully ignorant butt-hurt Socialists. Get with the program. People don't want a giant centralized government that steals from successful people and gives to losers, using authoritarian enforcement and political correctness. The don't want it in the U.S., and they don't want it anywhere in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel sorry for you that you have no self awareness. I'm certain that you've surrounded yourself by people who are also brainwashed with re-defined words.
However, I'm glad that there are lots of people becoming aware of the fascistic tactics of antifa. You are a useful idiot for those who wish to divide us and cause civil unrest; your main characteristic is a gigantic propensity for cognitive dissonance. You are the true fascist.
This. Also, his concerns were *not* concerns about anything public. There are apparently internal practices within Google that bothered him, and that-- in his opinion-- were themselves discriminatory and possibly illegal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you admit to being an SJW but are insulted when people call you that, then you are a conflicted human being who is looking for ways to be victimized.
Look, Damore points out that there are seminars and other resources made available to certain "groups" based on gender and race, to the exclusion of others. This is discrimination based on race and gender. To deny that is intellectually dishonest. Also, his certainty is based on well-researched subject matter. That the scientific conclusions reached are typically ignored as much as possible by the SJW culture, and when they come to light are labeled "hate facts," is disturbing.
You are very much oversimplifying his assertions. Have a look at the interview with Damore, which I'm guessing won't see the light of day in the legacy media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here's one scientist, interviewing James Damore and going over key points of the memo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This.
Also, the goal of a workplace is not "happiness." The goal is to produce a good or service with as much quality as possible, collect a paycheck, and live your life as you see fit. "Happiness" in the workplace is a bonus, whatever "happiness" even means. Is that intellectual fulfillment? Success? A nice office by the window?
Cut me a break. I love this bit, which immediately struck me as "brilliant" in that the audience they are pandering to typically have no senses of humor:
>> We did not exclude satire because many fake-news sources label their content as satirical, making the distinction problematic
And wow-- making the distinction problematic! The Left continues to reveal the disdain they have for the general public.
If you are triggered by this (i.e. teeing up cliche insults and unintelligent slogans) but still reading it, here is some advice: When someone with an agenda tells you *not to read something*, you should read it. You might just find yourself with a new understanding of the world.
(And no, Trump doesn't tell you to *not read* stuff. Actually, I think he's commenting on the death of legacy media quite nicely.)
I admire the civility of your argument, but am not convinced. The inferiority of musicians can easily, instantly, and objectively be noted in any type of audition. So any bigotry against women can be easily understood as a detriment to the success of such an orchestra.
Other professions, such as "computer scientist," can be invaded by good communicators who are good at using buzz words and know just enough to skate by during a mediocre interview; only later will their incompetence be discovered. Tack onto that Affirmative Action where quotas must be met, and standards will be lowered because the quality of the candidate is now subordinate to their "demographic value." Such a scenario can only lead to the decay of quality.
I believe that is one of the themes of the memo, and *not* to assert "the genetically inferiority of women."
Way to assert that women are the weaker sex!
>> they are often punished for being "bossy" or "shrill"
So you are saying that women are *too afraid* to negotiate higher salaries because they don't want to be labeled?
>> are judged more harshly for putting in long hours that neglect their families and friends
So you are saying that women can't actually *choose* on their own to spend their time doing "unpaid labor" as you call it (which may, scientifically speaking, be an actual biological imperative)? There are women who *do choose* this lifestyle of "unpaid labor"; and, in fact, are much more likely to be criticized by feminists who consider that choice a weakness.
>> more likely to speak up when they are under heavy stress and seek support for it
So you are suggesting that women require more support than men?
If I had to guess, you are probably left-leaning? This *IS* coming from the Left.
I have attempted this discussion with my wife many times unsuccessfully: She has declared an infinitely unbreakable loyalty to the Democratic Party, based largely on her identity as a woman.* Her Party Loyalty, in turn, has given her a blind spot for criticism of The Left. Therefore, she asserts that, "I personally don't believe [crazy far-left SJW rhetoric], so what are you talking about?"
Well, the crazy SJW stuff is in the process of devouring the soul of the Democratic Party. The Google memo guy has noticed what essentially amounts to a fascistic anti-intellectual culture. This *IS* coming from the Left; sorry to burst your bubble by towing a "left vs. right" line. Unfortunately for those who might still try to distinguish "Radical Left" from "Democrats," Democrats have loudly, vocally, publicly, unequivocally embraced the Radical Left's fascistic enforcement of political correctness.
People interested in free speech and the free exchange of ideas are sick of that. To wit, there is lots of science supporting the very ideas that the Google Memo Guy asserts that seem to be dismissed within *this* discussion, with no rational explanation. It simply doesn't fit a politically correct narrative and, therefore, "must be wrong" (or stupid, or misogynistic, etc.).
Rational people who value freedom are sick of that reductionist shit. This guy deserves praise for verbalizing his frustration, which mirrors many, many others' frustrations.
* Incidentally, as far as I can tell, the 19th Ammendment of the US Constitution was introduced by a Republican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .
Unfortunately, the Mainstream Media have already enjoyed a monopoly on mindshare for a long time. The reality is that the mindshare is not only draining from the Mainstream Media, but also the Internet is cultivating independent journalism.
Independent journalism, unfettered by the fascist/propagandist/leftist narrative that went unchecked for so long, has all but completely obliterated that narrative and, therefore, the credibility of these Mainstream Media organizations.
So, this seems more like a cry from an industry that has traditionally banked on creditbility, but can no longer do so. Screw them. Out with the old, in with the new.
This. It's tremendously short-sighted to just raise the minimum wage. It inevitably makes jobs disappear. So there will be a few people for a short period of time who have more cash in hand, but-- assuming that their jobs are low-skilled and not meant to provide a *career*-- they'll soon be out of work, thus sucking money *out* of the economy, rather than *into* the economy.
The whole "fight for 15" is such a silly "feel good" issue for liberal elitists; and, like other economic issues, the elitists will ignore real-world results and make abstract excuses for any signs of failure.
Corpulent Canines.
Thus, prices on products and services rise, so the short term wage hike is quickly offset. Thus, low-skilled jobs are replaced with automation where possible. Thus, government interference in the economy has the opposite effect of what was intended. Thus, the "fight for fifteen" folks up their congnitive-dissonance-based rhetoric.
People working in unskilled jobs at the higher minimum wage will not live comfortably for long, because the increase in cost for their low-skill labor will push costs up for whatever service they are providing or product they are creating. In addition, if there is an opportunity to replace unskilled labor with automation, those jobs will simply disappear.
I wouldn't classify the consequences of "fight for 15" as "doom and gloom" as much as harmful government intervention that ends up having not only unintended consequences, but also the exact opposite effect that was intended in the first place.
It's really intellectually dishonest to invoke "Christianity" in this context. (Note: I do not consider myself a Christian.) Christianity has undergone a Reformation, and continues to do so. I get that the Bible has lots of questionable material-- and I get that there are still literalists-- but these are a minority of Christians and, further, a call to violence against non-believers has no place in that doctrine. Christianity has, indeed, "evolved."
On the other hand, it seems that many Muslims find themselves "stuck" in un-reformed flavors of their religion where speaking of reform can actually be dangerous. Violence, while not a prerogative of a majority of Muslims, is nevertheless a dominant and highly visible and encouraged component of that minority called "radical Islamists."
You mean we should leave decision making to elitist lawyers who want everything to be State run, and to legislate through litigation? Wow, that sounds great! I would hate to give anyone with real-world experience the ability to staff and run projects based on some kind of useless meritocracy!
Is "salary" really how you believe society measures merit? You don't believe that talent, skill, and/or productivity are naturally championed by civilized society? And that pay/profit/salary is a reward for this merit? Are you a self-hating Marxist elitist who is guilty about your wealth? Or, are you an impoverished prole who is envious of others' success and wealth?
Equality of opportunity is the correct equalizer, in my opinion, for any civilized society's progress. The best ideas rise to the top, with success as an incentive. This obsession with others' wealth, especially in a conversation about equality, is at best naive; and, at worst, an excuse for the poor to steal from the rich.
There will never, ever be an equality of outcome for human beings under any system, ever. Any mechanism that attempts to achieve this would necessitate the complete destruction of human nature. (The same human nature that drives technologists to press on with their work.)
You, sir, are a robot.
Wrong-- US conservatism leans toward preserving the liberty afforded by the liberal principals on which the US was founded. The Left in the US wish to fascistically centralize power, legislating and regulating and outright strangling the freedom of the individual, which they would gladly-- if given the means-- enforce via authoritarian methods. See "Soviet Union" for a quick and easy example of this in action. See also "Venezuela."
Why do you think the Left are the ones these days who overtly oppose free speech?
The Anarchists are the useful idiots/soldiers of the Left who tear gas old ladies to oppose those who they disagree with. (Unless you mean the mythical notion that Socialism would evolve into a system where the state is no longer necessary, in which case nothing will bring you back from your dementia. Socialism always seems to derail once all of the country's resources have been depleted after short-term material gains of the unfortunate citizens within such a system, who then tend to riot against the state because their promised egalitarianism is a stupidly desirable religious dogma that is counter to Western civilization.)
idiot
Great point. Nevermind. You win.
One of the two groups, http://www.yhm.org.uk/ Young Health Movement, appears to be a subgroup of https://www.rsph.org.uk/ Royal Society for Public Health.
Looks like a single politically motivated activist group. It is also involved with campaigns to stop smoking, to label alcoholic beverages with calorie information, and the "Health on the High Street" campaign, whose mission is described as to "...ensure that local authorities have the powers they need to curtail business practices which may undermine the public’s health."
In other words, their aim seems to be to increase government intervention—in this case, within the realm of social interaction amongst the proles.
I would interpret this as a thinly veiled attempt to justify some kind of policy to further police language on these platforms to protect those who might be triggered or otherwise require a safe space. It is also kind of a stretch to include YouTube with "social platforms," because that is much more oriented toward pulling desirable content than it is toward open discussion.
>> overall happiness and equality of a nation's citizenry
Um, these two concepts will never co-exist. You're advocating for a non-meritocratic society, where there is no incentive to succeed. If there is no incentive to succeed, there will be no advancements in peace, technology, or any of the other stuff you named. Reality doesn't mesh well with your Marxist ideas.
Ah, the old unoriginal and oft-debunked "Republicans are racist" argument. Good job. Too bad there is no "like" capability here, because this would surely get you lots. Seriously, though-- I challenge you to examine the racist-ness of your own post and then imagine how much racism would diminish if people like you would stop calling everyone a racist!
It's a shame that you have been hypnotized into caring *so much* about the tax returns. It is not at all related to his election nor performance as president; and is completely related to socialist shills who are trying every vector to "resist" Trump's presidency. Sorry, but his tax returns are only significant to butt-hurt loser socialists.
Do you remember Trump's President-Elect press conference where a spokesperson for his law firm gave contact information for anyone with questions about Trump's legal ties? If you willfully ignored this, that is your own foolish partisan ignorance. Nevertheless, if there are any *real* journalists left in the mainstream media, it seems that they have a distinct vector for researching any conflicts of interest involving Trump or his companies.
Trump will always look bad to willfully ignorant butt-hurt Socialists. Get with the program. People don't want a giant centralized government that steals from successful people and gives to losers, using authoritarian enforcement and political correctness. The don't want it in the U.S., and they don't want it anywhere in the world.