|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 11 2017 03:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:22 Shiragaku wrote:
Well maybe I need to move up in the world to fully understand this, but from what I could gather about Google and much of Silicon Valley's corporate culture is that its very very progressive to the point that it may not be as uncontroversial as many people living there would have assumed. Whenever someone makes a strong social or political statement, it is only natural that there will naturally be a strong response. Corporate progressive isn't real progressive, it's stock price padding. Corporate image matters. A corporation has no values or obligations beyond enriching the stockholders. You can't appeal to their values because their only value is value itself. The worst sin is damaging the company. The guy damaged company image. There is no defence to that charge.
In that case, how cynical of corporations to do that then. Guess I don't really have anything to say to that.
|
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment.
|
On August 11 2017 03:28 Doodsmack wrote:
More of this please, Donny. Lol
I just love the "get back to work" while he's like a third of his time in office on vacation.
|
On August 11 2017 03:34 m4ini wrote:I just love the "get back to work" while he's like a third of his time in office on vacation.
tbf when he's not on vacation he has really improved his golf since taking office.
|
On August 11 2017 03:35 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:34 m4ini wrote:I just love the "get back to work" while he's like a third of his time in office on vacation. tbf when he's not on vacation he has really improved his golf since taking office.
I heard. He'll soon win the olympics too.
|
On August 11 2017 03:28 TheYango wrote:
That Google supports "progressive" causes is true, it's also not really related to why this guy got fired. Put him at any other company of Google's status and visibility, even one with more Right-leaning management, the same thing is going to happen. ESPECIALLY if they're under investigation for gender-based pay discrimination.
Yeah, this. Gender discrimination lawyers are circling Silicon Valley like sharks. Internal admissions by employees like the memo generate evidence and witnesses.
|
Trump is a debacle for their party and policies.
|
On August 11 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
Silicon Valley likes to believe and market itself as very progressive. Many progressives I know, including myself, disagree with their internal assessment.
Yeah, I'm going to have to start calling myself a leftist 
In other news
There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device.
In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.
Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative.
Source
To be clear, it's not saying there were no hacks or that Russia didn't interfere, just that the hack claimed on July 5th (announced by Crowdstrike on July 14th) was not a hack, but a leak.
My understanding is a bit basic, but the data given seems as solid or more so as what Crowdstrike said.
|
On August 11 2017 03:36 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 03:34 m4ini wrote:I just love the "get back to work" while he's like a third of his time in office on vacation. tbf when he's not on vacation he has really improved his golf since taking office. I heard. He'll soon win the olympics too.
He's an incredible athlete. One of his staff members told me so.
|
Canada11439 Posts
On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job.
Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering.
For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.)
|
On August 11 2017 03:42 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:36 m4ini wrote:On August 11 2017 03:35 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 03:34 m4ini wrote:I just love the "get back to work" while he's like a third of his time in office on vacation. tbf when he's not on vacation he has really improved his golf since taking office. I heard. He'll soon win the olympics too. He's an incredible athlete. One of his staff members told me so.
I believe that uncontested. Any news about him being the first person on the sun soon?
|
On August 11 2017 03:42 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:02 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He is doing the rounds on alt-right youtube channels right now, talking about how the echo chamber repressed him. I also would remind folks there is a LONG history of men using science to "prove" why women are not suited for a job. Normally done by men who hold that job. Do you consider Peterson to be alt-right? Because that's a rather sweeping assertion you made. James wasn't arguing that women were not suited for the job. He was saying that there are likely reasons reasons that women on average would not necessarily prefer a coding job from the myriad of jobs they choose from. I don't know that it is a given that the genders would prefer every occupation equally. Maybe it's the case, but we don't know for sure and so it's worth considering. For instance, are the sex differences found in Big 5 personality studies, good studies and if not, why not? And if there are differences (granted, overlapping), wouldn't we still see difference in preference as our society becomes more equal as it would maximize the personality differences as structural barriers are removed. Is the gender imbalance in prisons primarily a societal construct or because men tend to be lower in agreeableness on average (and that while the distribution is overlapping, the male distribution tends to be flatter and so the extremes are really really extreme.)
Falling, I would love to live in the world where we can’t make that assessment. I would love to be able to remove enough cultural bias to be able to tell if women and men prefer different jobs. But I don’t live in that world yet. We still exist in a world where large numbers of people don’t understand that cat calling is sexual harassment. Gender disparity in prisons is a valid topic, but can be addressed separately from employment and women in the computer sciences. I am very much a one topic at a time sort of person. Each of these issues deserves its own time and not be wrapped up in everything. But even if we did figure out the exact amount different genders preferred differed jobs, what is the goal? To what end are we waiting on this information and how can we measure it against cultural bias? How long will that take?
As for the “alt right media rounds”, I will admit I did not do a lot of careful research and I’ll be happy to say I was wrong. I don’t know who Peterson and likely will never care, which isn’t his fault. There is so much media out there that I don’t really feel the need to seek out more right now. To be honest, I am trying to read more and watch less(this is not an invite to send me things to read, I’ve got enough for 2 years at least)
|
On August 11 2017 02:42 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT This is really all that needs to be said in this specific context. Unless he had some reasonable case for a wrongful termination suit in the pipe, but as the reason for the firing is public and acceptable, this is an open-and-shut at-will employment matter. Pretty much this. I have some strong feelings about outsourcing to India for certain IT tasks. I don't go out of my way to let every single person in my company know that I dislike working with the majority of the outsourced workers, and that the quality of their work is subpar. I'm pretty sure that if I voiced my feelings to everyone in the company, probably a fair amount of people would agree, but it'd also foster a toxic work environment, and pretty harshly ruin relations with the workers.
This isn't what Damore said though.
He never said the women at Google did a worse job than than the men. His point was that it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to assume that the entire gender gap is due to discrimination, and that Google's culture/company policy is preventing a real discussion of the causes of the gender gap from happening. Which is a fair point, and isn't sexist at all.
There's an ungodly amount of strawmanning of Damore's statement going on in the last few pages.
Google didn't even make the claim that what Damore said was sexist, and, boy, would they have loved to have been able to make that claim when they fired him because it would have helped PR immensely. Which, on its own, really brings into question how a lot of posters here are claiming the memo is sexist.
Google fired him for "perpetuating gender stereotypes," or, in other words, restating some of what he thought were findings (some actually supported by academic research and some not) on gender differences.
|
On August 11 2017 03:50 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 02:42 Lmui wrote:On August 11 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT This is really all that needs to be said in this specific context. Unless he had some reasonable case for a wrongful termination suit in the pipe, but as the reason for the firing is public and acceptable, this is an open-and-shut at-will employment matter. Pretty much this. I have some strong feelings about outsourcing to India for certain IT tasks. I don't go out of my way to let every single person in my company know that I dislike working with the majority of the outsourced workers, and that the quality of their work is subpar. I'm pretty sure that if I voiced my feelings to everyone in the company, probably a fair amount of people would agree, but it'd also foster a toxic work environment, and pretty harshly ruin relations with the workers. This isn't what Damore said though. He never said the women at Google did a worse job than than the men. His point was that it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to assume that the entire gender gap is due to discrimination, and that Google's culture/company policy is preventing a real discussion of the causes of the gender gap from happening. Which is a fair point, and isn't sexist at all. There's an ungodly amount of strawmanning of Damore's statement going on in the last few pages.
His point was also that science demonstrates that less women than men are fit psychologically to fill tech and leadership roles. Which is unsupported and sexist.
|
It is also intellectually dishonest to mislead people about having a PHD in biology. But that didn’t stop Damore.
|
On August 11 2017 03:54 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 03:50 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 02:42 Lmui wrote:On August 11 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On August 11 2017 01:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 11 2017 01:20 a_flayer wrote:On August 11 2017 01:15 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 01:05 Danglars wrote:On August 11 2017 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone tries to martyr themselves for a political belief, I have a very easy time tuning them out and not taking their view seriously. This google guy is just another drama queen. He posted it privately to an internal google forum trying to argue Google itself had created a culture harmful to women. My god, he even enters nondiscriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap. Throw out methods that haven't worked to help women in their workforce, acknowledge ones that have (he talks about existing changes to Perf), and be more tolerant of ideas that don't fit a certain ideology. In interviews, he's said the internal response to the confidential memo was positive. Then he shared it with a skeptic group (falsely thinking they encouraged questioning accepted norms), and it soon after leaked. People that think he tried to martyr himself haven't read past the headline, or never looked at the evidence. Period. You don't read a breakdown like that and emerge thinking he was a drama queen. He tried to help the company, but the company wasn't tolerant of it. EDIT: I also should re-link it in case there's still a reader out there that's open to consider opposing arguments and the evidence used to support them before bringing their full biases to bear. So he wrote his ideas down and posted it on a company website, with full knowledge Google is currently facing a lawsuit from the Department of Labor about how google pays women? Sounds like a good way to make yourself a liability. You know how I avoid that? I don’t write things down and then publish them on my firm’s servers. I still don't think it's right for him to be fired over that, though. If he acted in a way that was discriminatory, that'd be grounds for firing him according to my standards (which do not apply). Of course, you seem to enjoy granting corporations as much power as they can attain without disturbing you on a personal level (healthcare), so naturally you'd side with them on the issue. "Oh no, we're facing a lawsuit so we will fire every employee that could implicate us for not doing enough to provide a welcoming environment for women." How dare that man give suggestions, poor Alphabet Inc. AT WILL EMPLOYMENT This is really all that needs to be said in this specific context. Unless he had some reasonable case for a wrongful termination suit in the pipe, but as the reason for the firing is public and acceptable, this is an open-and-shut at-will employment matter. Pretty much this. I have some strong feelings about outsourcing to India for certain IT tasks. I don't go out of my way to let every single person in my company know that I dislike working with the majority of the outsourced workers, and that the quality of their work is subpar. I'm pretty sure that if I voiced my feelings to everyone in the company, probably a fair amount of people would agree, but it'd also foster a toxic work environment, and pretty harshly ruin relations with the workers. This isn't what Damore said though. He never said the women at Google did a worse job than than the men. His point was that it's intellectually dishonest and lazy to assume that the entire gender gap is due to discrimination, and that Google's culture/company policy is preventing a real discussion of the causes of the gender gap from happening. Which is a fair point, and isn't sexist at all. There's an ungodly amount of strawmanning of Damore's statement going on in the last few pages. His point was also that science demonstrates that less women than men are fit psychologically to fill tech and leadership roles. Which is unsupported and sexist.
No, it wasn't. Did you read the public copy of the memo, or just the NYT and WaPo article on it?
What do you think causes the gender gap in tech? Is it purely sexism? Considering something like 80% of CS grads are men and the gender gap exists at pretty much all tech companies, clearly there's some biological and/or cultural factors that are driving it.
Moreover, if the gender gap is only due to discrimination, then Google is the worst offender of said discrimination seeing as its share of men in its workforce has dropped from 70% in 2014 (when they started releasing reports) to 69% today. Some "diversity effort," huh?
The firing is purely for PR reasons, though I disagree with Google's assessment of the tradeoffs involved in firing/not firing him. A statement such as "The memo written by James Damore does not reflect Google's view, but we encourage open discussion among employees on corporate policies and the best way to approach gender issues within the company" would have satisfied everyone in the country except radical progressives, and wouldn't have sent a such a terrifying message to future prospective employees about its work environment.
|
|
|
|
|
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD.
|
On August 11 2017 04:11 Plansix wrote:
I love that Intel and other companies already addressed this issue around 2015 and found solutions, including increased transparency of hiring, goals and pay, but we are debating it all over again today like its new. Just because of this guy and his fake PHD.
I'm not sure how you were presumably appalled at Trump's focus on personal attacks during the campaign but have spent a large part of this discussion repeatedly talking about this guy's "fake PhD" and "rounds on alt-right talk shows." Neither of which have any relevance with the memo or the firing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
