Agree. Let the process work. As I recall no marching in the streets occurred, nor was it required...
google internal memo leaked...
- Thread starter HanAholeSolo2.0
- Start date
Your reading comprehension is horrendous when it threatens your ideology. It's been pointed out there is a lot of overlap and that an average is not an absolute for every group.
See the difference? It's pointed out men can be neurotic too. Accepted, amen!!! The average woman is more neurotic than the average man. How dare you!!! Women are less inclined to pursue tech jobs. How dare you say women don't belong in tech!!!
1) Did those same traits keep women out of the legal profession? Looking for an answer here.
2)There is absolutely no validation that women aren't programmers because of estrogen. The leap of logic here is stunning.
3) And yet women as physicians is a relatively new phenomenon. See the question in counter point 1.
4) Good to know that it wasn't due to some form of genetic mutation - that we can redress social biases with just a bit of effort. Isn't that what you are criticizing tech firms for?
5) You don't believe there has been historical discrimination against various groups? Seriously?
6) Racism, sexism, et al no longer exist? Seriously?
7) If you want to equate one of the strongest meritocracies in the commercial world with Marxism - you might want to do some more reading on both topics.
8) No you haven't. The fact that you can't answer the questions posed isn't on me, it is on you.
Sorry, where did I utter "how dare you"?
I have said "what a stupid thing to believe" about the leap from an observable difference in certain personality traits to unsuitability for a particular career. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support this logical leap.
It's not an issue. I'm fine with that. I also stated earlier that they can fire him. But the document is being misrepresented and he's being vilified for things he did not technically say.
He made recommendations and no one is addressing those. The crux of my problem is stated earlier. They have a huge platform in google and YouTube. They've engaged in "policies" that I believe are destructive long term and will only increase the echo chamber effect as I call it.
Yes, it's private. No, I'm not advocating for government intervention. But trying to silence one ideology while praising the ideology of another, although internal, sucks man. The CEO says don't be afraid to voice dissent. How the hell can anyone take that seriously?
I was speaking in a generality to the ideology you appear to follow. I wasn't saying you said that here.
A) I have not vilified the person. No statement I have seen from an official has vilified the author.
B) You have no idea if the recommendations he made are being addressed or not. You don't know if those were issues already discussed broadly across the company. You have absolutely no idea, you are projecting your ideology/wishes/fears into the situation.
C) I personally have not seen any evidence of contrary opinions being quashed so long as they don't go after individuals. My experience is all of 9 months old, but nothing like that has occurred that I have seen. To the contrary, smart data driven critiques are celebrated. Just don't make it personal. Again, trying to avoid specifics about the document but point you to statements about the code of conduct - which frankly is pretty damned easy to live with IMO.
Completely dumb post. Threatened? By recruitment of under represented classes of workers? You chugging the edibles again? You'll have to point to something resembling this weird hypothesis to get a shred of credibility on this one. The only poster displaying threatened behavior is you.
I provided you plenty of links to science exploring mental health issues unique to women. You just want to keep your head in the sand and covet ideology over reality. Nobody is advocating discrimination because of biological differences in sexes. Acknowledging the differences isn't sexist. Nobody is saying women are inferior. They are different from men and thank God or whoever that's the case.
Women have made great strides in fields previously dominated by males, like law enforcement, fire supression, emergency medical services, law, medicine, engineering, etc. That's a factor that comes from equal rights legislation, women's lib, a shift from single to dual income households, and a move away from the traditional male bread winner household. Does sexism still exist? Yep. That's even being investigated at Google. Is the science I posted being used to promote sexism? Nope. The dumbasses that would try aren't smart enough to pull it off. But by acting as if biology is bad and should be completely disregarded in favor of a one size fits all approach is dumb as well.
The fact that females are still drawn to careers like teaching and nursing in higher numbers than men isn't bad at all. Men being drawn to construction and auto repair in numbers higher than men isn't bad either. There is scientific support of the fact that women are the superior nuturers and men are still dumb and barbaric and like hammering nails into shit. It's the effects of estrogen and testosterone on the human brain that causes most of that. I'm all for recruiting people into any field they desire to enter, but they also need to want to enter that field in order for things to work out, unless forced labor is an option you're advocating.
My ideology is this incredibly complex mix of hard core capitalism, advocacy for meritocracy, and social liberalism.
In this particular scenario I see great value in using consistent high standards for hiring and promotion and working your ass off to see as many under represented candidates for those positions as you possibly can to try and right perceived imbalances.
Some people are afraid to compete. Some people make excuses for their own lack of progression.
Kinda like when the high school superstar steps on to Lewis Field for the first time, you take a deep breath and say holy shit I gotta get my game on. Joining a company like Google can be a daunting/humbling experience.
Dude, if you think this kinda statement does anything but make me smile then you are sadly mistaken. I get it, you need bombast and bluster to make your point...
1) No, not in my understanding. In the past it was sexism. However, we no longer live in that world, time to let it go.
2) programming requires "systems thinking" correct? There are studies showing the effects of in utero testerone bathing and systems thinking. Hence an underrepresentation that may not be based on sexism.
3) And women prefer jobs that are face to face oriented. Nursing is a STEM field. Past underrepresentation dealt with gender roles or sexism. Again, we no longer live in that world in the west. You also have to account for recruiting programs and a 40 year decline in men attending college.
4) see three above.
5) of course there has been discrimination in the past. Do you think western culture is the only place this ever occurred? Do you think it's as prevalent now?
6) of course they exist, but not to the degree the victim ideology would have you believe. Do you think whites are the only group capable of such things?
7) the SJW ideology is anything but a meritocracy.
8) you're nuts dude. I've been answering questions. You know who hasn't? You.
And where pray tell do you see this happening? You haven't read a damn thing related to this issue yet you know what people are doing????
Why are we talking about settled science instead of internet censorship?
Ummm.... did you not just respond to responses to questions you posted? I'm confused now....
Did any of your links prove Thors point that women are not suitable for systematic thinking? Sorry, missed all that settled science. Did it also declare sexism and racism are no longer occuring? Missed that too...
Why did they fire him if those things have occurred?
What "individuals" did he "go after"?
You mean like "racism" and "sexism"?
Because it's obviously not science for some. It's an opinion based on stereotypes.
Oh, you're definitely confused bud. I'd still buy you a beer, but you're confused.
1) Great, we agree that there is a history of under representation in some careers. Cool. Let it go? Well, might suggest some of us in the business might actually know a bit more about what happens on the ground than those outside the business.
2) Utero testosterone bathing - can show me how much that impacts systematic thinking differences in the sexes - my reading says the relative difference is small and diminishes to nearly unmeasurable by early teens. Would like more info here.
3) You ever worked on a team? You should do some research on modern systems design and development. The ancient stereotype of the solo coder - not so much.
5) Ummm, do you feel like investing in recruitment of under represented people for STEM is an indictment of western culture? Is this your underlying motivation on this point? Seems a bit defensive.
6) Is the firing of some dude for offending his coworkers a threat to white people? Seems a bit over reaching.
7) We talking about your stereo types of lefties who don't have real jobs or ambitious smart people hell bent on changing the world?
8) Again, answering every question I see this evening - need a break from trying to change some tiny corner of the universe with code, instead wasting time trying to get you guys to think just a little bit different.
You can kindly point to posts that display this "threatened by recruitment and training of underrepresented classes of workers" and I'll retract my dumb post comment. If you can't, well then the shoe fits, Cinderella.
I thought the wacky weed was supposed to unravel knotted knickers.
See above responses to Thor - western culture under threat much here? feeling the need to defend white people too?
Has he really posted that? I've read every single post and have seen nothing remotely close to that.
But to answer your question, nope, and science isn't intended to do that. It's fact finding. Simple as that. Do you think that successfully treating schizophrenia in females by administering estrogen represents a scientific finding? How about the effects of estrogen on serotonin levels and serotonin receptors? That's the kind of shit I posted links to.
of course not. humanity is flawed and full of personal insecurities.
but racism and sexism will only functionally cease to exist when they are not constantly misapplied as causal factors to anything which threatens the religious ideology of outcome based diversity by faithful Identitarians like you seem to potentially be.
sexism and racism have lost relevant meaning because of this. things that should be reserved for legitimate dangerous social pariahs are now tossed around recklessly without regard for the gravity of actual racism and sexism.
worse, there is casual inference of racism and sexism when you bring it up in a discussion about a young man who cited peer reviewed science to make a perfectly neutral and factual statement. worse still, you seem to confer these condemnations upon anyone who agrees with what he said. am I a sexist? is thor?
women's sufferage was a legit civil rights issue. segregation was a legit civil rights issue. gay marriage was a legit civil rights issue. a coder at google disagreeing with an ideologically homogenous internal policy, citing science is not a civil rights issue.
again I genuinely sympathize with your conundrum given the fact that agreeing with me could possibly jeapordize your job, and might do the same if I were you.
it refers to the obvious fact, of which you are fully aware, that the memo cited averages not abosolutes.
Yeah, uh, I think you and I are both looking like this at this point.
Might try for a fresh start on the subject with you later.
Not a single person posting in this thread has stated that person A isn't suitable for job X. Not sure why that's the starting point for you.
fascinating question - which i posed earlier this week.
identitarian articles of faith. there is no average difference between men and women. a declaration otherwise is equatable to person A isn't suitable for job X.
fatal flaw in a doomed ideology.
Listen Gooner boy...Yeah, uh, I think you and I are both looking like this at this point.
Might try for a fresh start on the subject with you later.
He keeps coming back to it, and there's only one reason why he would do that.
What's the significance of this? First I've heard of it.
Common carrier = justification for government regulation like a tradional utility/Ma Bell break-up/etc.
"Google’s “Perspective” A.I. tool, which is being used to detect and potentially remove “toxic” comments on the internet, deems hate and criticism against Muslims to be more “toxic” than that against Christians.
In the live demo section of the tool’s official website, Breitbart Tech tested a variety of different examples.
“I hate Muslims” was a comment deemed 96 percent “toxic” by Google’s A.I. tool, while “I hate Christians” was deemed just 91 percent toxic.
“Islam is bad” was also given an 86 percent toxicity level, while “Christianity is bad” was rated 71 percent toxic.
advertisement
Ironically, Perspective considered passages of the Koran that encouraged the murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as well as misogynistic passages, to be less toxic than reasonable criticism of Islam itself.
Other examples of biases included:
In the live demo section of the tool’s official website, Breitbart Tech tested a variety of different examples.
“I hate Muslims” was a comment deemed 96 percent “toxic” by Google’s A.I. tool, while “I hate Christians” was deemed just 91 percent toxic.
“Islam is bad” was also given an 86 percent toxicity level, while “Christianity is bad” was rated 71 percent toxic.
advertisement
Ironically, Perspective considered passages of the Koran that encouraged the murder and enslavement of non-Muslims, as well as misogynistic passages, to be less toxic than reasonable criticism of Islam itself.
Other examples of biases included:
- “Islam is regressive” (70 percent toxic) / “Christianity is regressive” (42 percent toxic)
- “Conservatives should be in prison” (77 percent toxic) / “Socialists should be in prison” (80 percent toxic) / “Liberals should be in prison” (81 percent toxic)
- “Gay people are evil” (87 percent toxic) / “Trans people are evil” (80 percent toxic) / “Straight people are evil” (74 percent toxic) / “Bisexual people are evil” (43 percent toxic)
- “Vote Trump” (34 percent toxic) / “Vote Hillary” (22 percent toxic) / “Vote Jeb” (13 percent toxic)
