|
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 05:42 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 04:53 Wulfey_LA wrote:Do you ever wonder what an open defense of Trump on the merits would sound like? Perhaps a real world defense of Trump that doesn't resort to Evangelical Christian tropes like Satan? And even better, the defense isn't just some anti-anti-Trumpism that picks on SJWs at community colleges! Well, maybe this defense does some of that, but most of it is a straight-faced merits argument for Trump as Trump. The memo that McMaster used as a justification for purging the National Security Council of Cernovich leakers and Flynn acolytes has leaked. And it is magnificent. http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/10/heres-the-memo-that-blew-up-the-nsc/ What a sad, sad administration. It will be ineffective so long as Trump is at the top. It's pretty clear by now that he can't effectively lead it.
The NSC was stuffed with guys who would resort to unlimited conspiratorial thinking. The agents of Political Correctness were engaged in a Cultural Marxist Total War against America by attacking Trump. This was the secular argument for Trump, that everyone else was wrong about Trump and engaged in a Globalist Marxist Islamist conspiracy.
|
On August 11 2017 05:42 a_flayer wrote:
Why is it a societal problem now and a sexist problem when we were discussing that guy at Alphabet?
Sexism as a large part of society, is a problem. Young girls being naturally guided towards gender-specific roles in society is damaging and decreases total human productivity efficiency and efficacy. At the end of the day, it is very important that women who may have excelled in STEM need to not feel discouraged from doing so. There is an enormous shortage of STEM people on a global scale and we are progressing slower than we would if our women were more productive. Women are less productive because societal factors derail interest in STEM.
|
Google isn’t magically immune to the thing that still plagues all of our media, schools, colleges and most professions. If we lived in a pure meritocracy, top to bottom , there is no way the makeup of any company or government would look the way it does right now. There is no profession that wouldn’t be changed, from nursing to software. But we don’t live in that world that ignores race and gender.
|
On August 11 2017 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:42 a_flayer wrote:
Why is it a societal problem now and a sexist problem when we were discussing that guy at Alphabet? Sexism as a large part of society, is a problem. Young girls being naturally guided towards gender-specific roles in society is damaging and decreases total human productivity efficiency and efficacy. At the end of the day, it is very important that women who may have excelled in STEM need to not feel discouraged from doing so. There is an enormous shortage of STEM people on a global scale and we are progressing slower than we would if our women were more productive. Women are less productive because societal factors derail interest in STEM.
I don't see any of these things as a problem.
I guess its a matter of perspective.
To me, gender specific roles are there for a reason, and while there shouldn't be any pressure on women not to do what they are passionate about, its also important that people do what they feel is right for them. Forcing things in the other direction out of a wish for homogeneity is misguided in my opinion.
Total human productivity is not, for me the essence of life. In fact, progress has been altogether too fast for a while now (as you can see by the skyrocketing mental health issues in more developed parts of the world).
|
Apparently pointing out some of the underlying issues in gender disparity and giving some points where this disparity can be addressed without attributing the disparity all to straight up misogyny is sufficient to be labeled sexist by some people here. But when Intels fantastic new diversity program doesn't result in 50% females amongst newly hired employees, it's partially because of the context of society, etc, etc.
|
this is a real presidential statement
|
On August 11 2017 05:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:On August 11 2017 05:42 a_flayer wrote:
Why is it a societal problem now and a sexist problem when we were discussing that guy at Alphabet? Sexism as a large part of society, is a problem. Young girls being naturally guided towards gender-specific roles in society is damaging and decreases total human productivity efficiency and efficacy. At the end of the day, it is very important that women who may have excelled in STEM need to not feel discouraged from doing so. There is an enormous shortage of STEM people on a global scale and we are progressing slower than we would if our women were more productive. Women are less productive because societal factors derail interest in STEM. I don't see any of these things as a problem. I guess its a matter of perspective. To me, gender specific roles are there for a reason,
Look at American culture 100 years ago. It was like that for a reason, right? Would you argue in favor of American culture 100 years ago? Women's contribution to global human effectiveness has skyrocketed in the past 100 years. The argument you are making is very poor because it assumes some sort of underlying backbone to human societal development and assumes that a single time instance of society is justifiable in and of itself.
|
I honestly don't believe you. This must be satire.
|
On August 11 2017 05:53 a_flayer wrote:
Apparently pointing out some of the underlying issues in gender disparity and giving some points where this disparity can be addressed without attributing the disparity all to straight up misogyny is sufficient to be labeled sexist by some people here, and a justified reason to be fired when its about Alphabet. But when Intels fantastic new diversity problem doesn't result in 50% females amongst newly hired employees, it's partially because of the context of society, etc, etc.
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/intel-knows-it-isnt-where-it-wants-to-be-on-diversity/
Why do you keep changing their goal to 50% women hiring when their goal is 40%? They have goals, not quotas.
|
I don’t even know where to start with this. It is so fucking stupid I can’t even begin to address how stupid it is.
|
On August 11 2017 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On August 11 2017 05:48 Mohdoo wrote:On August 11 2017 05:42 a_flayer wrote:
Why is it a societal problem now and a sexist problem when we were discussing that guy at Alphabet? Sexism as a large part of society, is a problem. Young girls being naturally guided towards gender-specific roles in society is damaging and decreases total human productivity efficiency and efficacy. At the end of the day, it is very important that women who may have excelled in STEM need to not feel discouraged from doing so. There is an enormous shortage of STEM people on a global scale and we are progressing slower than we would if our women were more productive. Women are less productive because societal factors derail interest in STEM. I don't see any of these things as a problem. I guess its a matter of perspective. To me, gender specific roles are there for a reason, Look at American culture 100 years ago. It was like that for a reason, right? Would you argue in favor of American culture 100 years ago? Women's contribution to global human effectiveness has skyrocketed in the past 100 years. The argument you are making is very poor because it assumes some sort of underlying backbone to human societal development and assumes that an instantaneous instance of society is justifiable in and of itself.
That's fair enough
Let me be more specific about what I mean. I'll use an example
Athletics. Women aren't performing as well as men in athletics (yeah i'm watching the WC now lol). Is this because we socially condition women to be slower than men? No, its because women are different than men, have different characteristics, and so we keep the women's competition separate.
Is this sexist or not?
I would argue that it isn't because it is simply acknowledging the biological facts that women and men are different and have different characteristics AT BIRTH.
This means that if we really, really needed the fastest people in the world in order to achieve some task for our progress as a society what would we do? Go for a 50/50 split and try and address the underlying social issues behind the difference in speed?
I'm not trying to be obnoxious and I know its a weird example that doesn't really transfer to the tech industry, but when it comes to the modern progressive definition of sexism its an interesting area to explore.
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
|
On August 11 2017 05:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:53 a_flayer wrote:
Apparently pointing out some of the underlying issues in gender disparity and giving some points where this disparity can be addressed without attributing the disparity all to straight up misogyny is sufficient to be labeled sexist by some people here, and a justified reason to be fired when its about Alphabet. But when Intels fantastic new diversity problem doesn't result in 50% females amongst newly hired employees, it's partially because of the context of society, etc, etc. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/intel-knows-it-isnt-where-it-wants-to-be-on-diversity/Why do you keep changing their goal to 50% women hiring when their goal is 40%? They have goals, not quotas.
No, no. I'm not changing goals. You're making that up. I'm saying that that unless there is an even 50/50 split, there is no full equality, and thus a disparity between the genders. Intels goals are irrelevant to this point. Some of the reasons for that disparity are the result of what that guys memo said, whether you like it or not. Pointing this out and naming certain attributes that are part of the cause of this disparity, and presenting options that would accommodate for those attributes to be taken into account in the work is not inherently sexist.
The problem I have is that suddenly some of those points appear to be valid arguments to explain the lack of diversity at Intel, but invalid when that guy presents some of the underlying issues.
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course.
|
On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote: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. using "science" as some kind of elevated vantage point to spread what is essentially a political message is typical of these internet "manosphere" types so the point is warranted. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me". It wasn't against diversity as such. But it was suggesting that even if Google ties itself up into knots trying to get the 50:50 balance of men and women exactly correct, there might be other factors that might make this goal unrealistic. That is, certain fields may be more appealing to certain sexes that might account for some of the differences found in society. Outdoor work might appeal more to males, hence the disparity in roofing, painting and maybe there's something to preference when it comes to nurses, pre-school teachers, and counsellors. I don't, are we hoping in an ideal society that every single occupation is represented 50% across the board... or I guess 49.7% of each and .3 trans? Or are we simply hoping to remove any sex related barrier and whatever distribution we get in a particular occupation, oh well. People can get what they want based on their merit and if one sex didn't care for a particular job that's just what happens? I think the problem with this line of reasoning is it is clearly irrelevant at the moment. We're not anywhere close to a gender balance that can be explained by something biological and that's obvious looking at history, other industries, and other parts of the world. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number.
That's a conspiracy theory-level assertion that I've never heard any evidence of, so implementing programs like diversity queues and oppressing any discussion of opposition to such programs seems like a radical solution for a problem that likely does not even exist.
Look, if Google feels that Google is better off with diversity programs then more power to them. I don't care. But firing someone for validly questioning such programs in a respectfully written internal memo that many Googlers apparently agree with is a level of echo chamber promotion that I'm not comfortable with. I understand at-will employment, and I don't think Google did anything illegal. Furthermore, perhaps it's the right decision for PR reasons.
On the other hand, it's a disturbing sign of how closed Google's culture may have become, and even more disturbing that a large enough share of the public supports such closed-mindedness that it became a large PR problem for Google. Lastly, it's disturbing that Google senior management is trying to force its political ideology onto its employees, or cares so little open discussion that it wouldn't simply release a statement saying it doesn't hold Damore's views, but values open discussion. Especially for a company with so much data with potential for abuse.
It also sends a negative message to prospective employees, which is why I question the decision on its profit merits. Speaking as someone who interviewed with Google and competitors this summer, I'm personally considerably more comfortable that I'll be working for Amazon rather than Google after reading about this saga.
|
On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right?
Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Tayloresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy.
|
On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy.
If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men?
Don't women deserve those resources too?
This is exactly what I mean by tailoring society to take account of our strengths and weaknesses.
I'm not arguing in favour of barriers, I'm arguing against the unrealistic expectation of homogeneity.
|
On August 11 2017 06:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 05:03 Plansix wrote:On August 11 2017 05:00 mozoku wrote:On August 11 2017 04:40 Logo wrote:On August 11 2017 04:37 Falling wrote:On August 11 2017 04:19 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 04:14 mozoku wrote: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. using "science" as some kind of elevated vantage point to spread what is essentially a political message is typical of these internet "manosphere" types so the point is warranted. The google guy buried a political polemic against diversity under a thin veneer of science to shield himself from criticism. Same thing with the whole martyrdom of "If I say the truth they will persecute me". It wasn't against diversity as such. But it was suggesting that even if Google ties itself up into knots trying to get the 50:50 balance of men and women exactly correct, there might be other factors that might make this goal unrealistic. That is, certain fields may be more appealing to certain sexes that might account for some of the differences found in society. Outdoor work might appeal more to males, hence the disparity in roofing, painting and maybe there's something to preference when it comes to nurses, pre-school teachers, and counsellors. I don't, are we hoping in an ideal society that every single occupation is represented 50% across the board... or I guess 49.7% of each and .3 trans? Or are we simply hoping to remove any sex related barrier and whatever distribution we get in a particular occupation, oh well. People can get what they want based on their merit and if one sex didn't care for a particular job that's just what happens? I think the problem with this line of reasoning is it is clearly irrelevant at the moment. We're not anywhere close to a gender balance that can be explained by something biological and that's obvious looking at history, other industries, and other parts of the world. As far as Damore is concerned though, Google only has control only what it does internally. If women are less interested in being software engineers for purely cultural reasons and consequently 80% of applicants are men, then you would expect 80% of Google's software engineers to be men (assuming identical distributions of skill between gender for applicants). Even without discrimination. If that's the case, then programs like diversity hiring queues are harmful for Google and useless for society. And promoting a culture of shaming and open discussion oppression is bad in nearly any context. But then you run into the problem that Google is a powerful company that wields incredible influence in the world. 80% of the employees could be deeply invested in making sure they don’t’ have to compete with anything more than 20% of women for these high paying jobs. And you wont’ know unless you have a diversity effort to try an increase those numbers in a transparent fashion. If only 20% of women want the job, then it will be hard to raise that number. That's a conspiracy theory-level assertion that I've never heard any evidence of, so implementing programs like diversity queues and oppressing any discussion of opposition to such programs seems like a radical solution for a problem that likely does not even exist. Look, if Google feels that Google is better off with diversity programs then more power to them. I don't care. But firing someone for validly questioning such programs in a respectfully written internal memo that many Googlers apparently agree with is a level of echo chamber promotion that I'm not comfortable with. I understand at-will employment, and I don't think Google did anything illegal. Furthermore, perhaps it's the right decision for PR reasons. On the other hand, it's a disturbing sign of how closed Google's culture may have become, and even more disturbing that a large enough share of the public supports such closed-mindedness that it became a large PR problem for Google. Lastly, it's disturbing that Google senior management is trying to force its political ideology onto its employees, or cares so little open discussion that it wouldn't simply release a statement saying it doesn't hold Damore's views, but values open discussion. Especially for a company with so much data with potential for abuse. It also sends a negative message to prospective employees, which is why I question the decision on its profit merits. Speaking as someone who interviewed with Google and competitors this summer, I'm personally considerably more comfortable that I'll be working for Amazon rather than Google after reading about this saga.
I really hope you get that job at Amazon. I sure that company will be completely different from Google on this front.
|
On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course.
The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal.
|
On August 11 2017 06:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:On August 11 2017 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:
This is why I said earlier that more effort and money should be put into trying to research the gender differences between men and women, where the average strengths and weaknesses of each lie, and tailoring society to that, rather than to some desire for men and women to be exactly equally proficient at every task regardless of the reality we live in.
You don't use research to reinforce existing barriers, you use it to break them up. It's scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide success rates. Clearly we don't draw any normative conclusions from this right? Given that few people I've ever met want to work in Talyoresque monocultures the task of research in this field should be how to use evidence to make industries more diverse in a successful way. Putting peoplle into neat little biological buckets is a 19th century Victorian fantasy. If its scientifically true that men have a higher propensity to alcoholism and higher suicide rates,would it be sexist to spend more money on alcoholism and suicide awareness aimed at men?
Nope not at all and I don't think anybody would say that it is. We'd say that men engage in more risky behaviour, that this is evidently bad for their health and that we would try to figure out how to do something against it.
Likewise, diversity is about figuring out why different groups (not just women but also ethnicities, members of religions, social classes and so forth) have a hard time participating in successful industries and how we're going to make that better.
|
based Putin saving murica
thank you based Putin
No puppet btw
On video, he's not even sarcastic in the slightest
|
On August 11 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 06:02 a_flayer wrote:
Also, it appears that Google had 31% female employees in 2015. That's more than Intel has even now. This is whole thing of equal gender representation is falling apart really quickly for me.
Wages are another problem, with other root causes, of course. The thing is you keep saying “equal” and 50/50, but I keep pointing out that the goal is more. More women. Not equal women. Just more. More resumes. More interviews. It seems to be a basic misconception with these diversity pushes, that the goal is to have 50/50 men and women. That isn't really the goal.
You're not gonna get more (qualified) resumes or interviews if there is no interest, though. Which there genuinely doesn't really appear to be. I mean... that's the whole point I'm trying to make. There's not enough interest to significantly boost the numbers beyond the 30% range without a huge societal shift which corporations like Intel can't facilitate because they're on the receiving end of society in that regard. There were 0 women in the IT classes that I followed. Literally none. I was probably the most feminine person there, lol.
The only way in which corporations can change this, I think, is by changing the job descriptions and requirements, as per the suggestion of that guy - make it so that the work is more oriented to some of the qualities that are more prevalent in women, and then pass on those requirements to the schools. That's how you can facilitate these changes. But no, instead of listening to him, they kick him out because it is sexist to suggest that the job descriptions are somewhat inherently sexist.
It's either that, or wait another 100 years for society to catch up as gender roles are very slowly eroded like they have in Western Europe and Japan over the past 100 year. You can't force women into tech schools by asking for more resumes from them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
