EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 8376
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On August 12 2017 07:32 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: https://twitter.com/elizondogabriel/status/896132965142372353 The idiot wouldn't rule out the military option in Chicago. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
He wasn't saying "Google's status quo is bad politics." He was saying "Google's status quo is bad for Google, and Google's status quo isn't the best way to reach its diversity goals." It was impossible to make that statement without getting into politics. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On August 12 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote: While I agree that the law shouldn't necessarily play in here, I'm not sure what you're describing is good from a societal perspective or a business perspective. Doesn't it make anyone else nervous that a company with as much media influence as Google is content to enforce an internal ideological echo chamber? From a business perspective, having a variety of viewpoints is usually beneficial. Echo chambers mitigate that, though it's hard to measure the impact it has. Furthermore, at Google's level, they're competing for top talent. An oppressive echo chamber is a significant turn-off to prospective employees--who at Google's level, can choose from a wide variety of employers. This obviously isn't nearly enough to sink Google as a top destination for talent, but Google has been getting more and more mini-issues that might catch up it with eventually. I'm not sure whether it was the right or wrong decision from a business perspective, but I don't think it's as clear cut as you think. Yeah I suppose you would turn down an offer from Google huh? You seem to be ignoring the fact that a culture that is constantly discussing whether women are as good at programming at men and whether women are too neurotic to handle high-stress positions well might turn off a lot of talented women who could offer diverse perspectives and perhaps outsized value. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 12 2017 07:06 TheTenthDoc wrote: He hugely minimizes what his screed actually was. He wasn't just "raising points." He directly advocated the removal of a whole swath of diversity-promoting policies at Google, completely ignoring his own point that there are real implicit biases reducing the ability of women to succeed. He also bizarrely said empathy was bad. Even then, internally that might be fine through the proper channels, if extremely unlikely to accomplish any of your goals. But publishing it is purely saying "hey everyone look how bad Google is lolol" because you're an asshole or just hate your job/employers. You don't post something about how shit CVS's policies are when you're a CVS pharmacist on your Facebook. I already addressed the first part, and he didn't publish the memo. It was leaked. On August 11 2017 10:30 TheTenthDoc wrote: I mean, the problem isn't that he said "there are potential biological causes of gender differences" it's that he said they should nuke diversity programs of several stripes in the memo, remove multiple programs oriented at removing non-biological biases (which he even admits exist!), and "de-emphasize empathy" (lmao). At least that's what I got out of skimming his text and list of suggestions. "I don't think what you're saying was the problem. Google fired him for "perpetuating gender stereotypes", not for his arguably poor suggestions for improving diversity at Google. Furthermore, most of the criticism here started because somebody claimed Damore said that "women are biologically inferior to men at tech jobs so he's sexist." As for the suggestions themselves: He didn't call for "nuking diversity programs" in the memo, he called for a rational discussion of the cost and benefits. Which follows from his theme in the whole memo. His claim on bias training is that it hasn't had any measurable effect, and thus is just a waste of time/money. Arguably a fair point. Ineffective diversity programs shouldn't be untouchable simply because they're diversity programs. Of course there's always arguments about the validity of studies. The empathy thing is just a matter of you not reading the actual text and a bad choice of header on Damore's part. His point is that Google should be more rational and scientific in its approach, not rely on anecdotes and feelings. --- Basically it looks like you skimmed the headers and came to conclusions that fit your pre-existing views on the issue." On August 12 2017 07:36 Plansix wrote: He brought it to the wrong venue. He should have sent the memo to the diversity office and discussed it with them. But he didn't. Why should he have done that? You and I both know that's an exercise in futility in any corporate environment. "Hey VP of Department X, I think everything you've done since you got your job are wrong. You should be doing Plan Y instead." Besides, he's not allowed to express his critiques of company policies with his coworkers, even if it's respectful and well-reasoned, simply because it happens to have political overtones? It isn't his fault that most of his coworkers strawmanned his document, thought it was sexist, and threw a temper tantrum. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 12 2017 07:34 mozoku wrote: He was saying "Google's status quo is bad for Google, and Google's status quo isn't the best way to reach its diversity goals." It was impossible to make that statement without getting into politics. He is an engineer. Not a CEO. Welcome to corporate life, where big heads either rise to the top or get popped. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On August 12 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote: Oh, he has a patreon. It all becomes clear now. All becomes clear. Don't put the cart before the horse. He had his patreon account a long time before this all blew up. He's been quietly posting old and new lectures on his youtube account for the last four years. What began this was a three video talk 'Professor against political correctness' that garnered a lot of views. + Show Spoiler + In it, he resists the idea of anti-bias training, largely on the grounds that there is no evidence that shows anti-bias training actually decreases biases and there is some evidence that it actually increases biases. From there word got back on to his campus, student groups objected to his videos and began protesting, calling for his firing. He got two warning letters from his administration (which to him, seemed to prove his point that there were some troubling legale issues here.) There's a decent number of viral videos of students yelling in his face at this time. Around December, he wasn't entirely sure if his tenure was on the line- but by this time news media had picked it up and and significant numbers of people online found him as well. In the midst of this controversy and unsolicited by him, that's when his Patreon account suddenly got huge numbers of backers. From there he had to pivot to figure out what to do with the money, and as he had an interest in bringing education to more people, he bumped up the quality of regular psychology videos and began new series + Show Spoiler + (Including, I'll admit some really weird ones- someone said he goes down the rabbit hole on symbolism, and I'll agree to that. He's really big on archetypes for whatever reason.) Yes, people wound up giving him a lot of money. And that might make it easy to dismiss him without really listening. But it's not something he set out to do, and I don't think it's his motivation. There's been other weird fall outs. In his last research grant, he was given one of the largest research grants in the field of psychology. This last year, he was rejected, not just barely rejected, but bottom of the list rejected- and again this guy continues to be a very, very highly cited psychologist- consistently, not like suddenly in the last half year, but for the last number of years. He's never been rejected for a research grant. Suddenly at the bottom of the list. Hard to prove, but there's some possibility that the hooplah in the news played a role in ranking him so low. It wouldn't have impacted his own income, but it would've impacted his graduate students, but the internet, unsolicited, came to the rescue again (this time begun by our gadfly right wing news outlet). The guy gets money, but I think it speaks more to the frustration a lot of people on what's going on, then him being a 'merchant of fear' or whatever. Look, he's said on multiple occasions- when people first come across him, they rightly say, who the hell are you, why are you such an alarmist: are you crazy or are you selling something. He says that's the right suspicion. That's what your supposed to do. But after people (particularly reporters) saw the protests and the administration issues he was having, and that of the hundreds of hours of lectures he put online, the bigot label put on him didn't match his body of work, they started paying more attention. One of the biggest patterns he's heard of reporters and politicians and regular people is that they are afraid to speak freely because it might be perceived wrongly and they end up in the same sort of firestorm as he has gone through. So there's some nerve he's tapped into and while you dismiss it as him tapping into something for financial gain, I would say he tapped into something and people said "Yes. You are starting to articulate something we feel as well, and experienced significant push back for your troubles, here's money and do more." I think that's very different. Now could he turn into a merchant of fear like the Islamist Jihad watch guys, yeah that could happen. But that's not where it started and I don't think that's where it is now. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 12 2017 07:39 IgnE wrote: Yeah I suppose you would turn down an offer from Google huh? You seem to be ignoring the fact that a culture that is constantly discussing whether women are as good at programming at men and whether women are too neurotic to handle high-stress positions well might turn off a lot of talented women who could offer diverse perspectives and perhaps outsized value. Uh, yeah if I also have offers from Amazon and Facebook. Which most Google engineers could obtain. The talent pool that Google is drawing from has competitors with comparably attractive work environments. I could give you a whole host of issues with working at Google because I've interviewed with them and with competitors for technical positions and needed to be prepared to make a decision in case of multiple offers. They aren't the best employer out there for a lot of people in tech. Each person is different and wants different things out of their job. You're just strawmanning the memo or didn't understand it. He didn't assert that there was a difference in performance between men and women at Google. He asserted that biological and cultural factors may produce an eligible talent pool that is mostly male, and consequently Google's workforce would be mostly male. Due to factors outside of Google's control. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
I mean, I guess. But I think that'll lead to even stronger ideological divides: the hollowing out of the middle and the hardening into left-right camps. There are few jobs where political beliefs matter (a left wing or right wing talk show, probably wants to hire people from their respective camps). But for most jobs, a healthy society ought to be able to express very different political beliefs, have courteous disagreements, and still do their job. What is legally allowable isn't the same thing as what is beneficial for society. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 12 2017 07:39 mozoku wrote: Why should he have done that? You and I both know that's an exercise in futility in any corporate environment. "Hey VP of Department X, I think everything you've done since you got your job are wrong. You should be doing Plan Y instead." Besides, he's not allowed to express his critiques of company policies with his coworkers, even if it's respectful and well-reasoned, simply because it happens to have political overtones? It isn't his fault that most of his coworkers strawmanned his document, thought it was sexist, and threw a temper tantrum. My opinion was shot down today by my boss. I pointed out a flaw in our system and he said that it wasn't relevant. I said I wanted to put my objection on the record because it will be an issue down the line and he didn't' care. I 100% know I am right, but I'm going to do what I am told because that is my job. He didn't' go through the proper venues for his grievances, because he knew what would happened. He tried to drum up support and it backfired on him. Man I really want you to get a job and Amazon or Facebook, where the culture will be exactly the same as Google, if not more diversity focused. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
gofundme has turned everyone into a potential beggar. how is society to function when exploitation is everywhere and shame is nowhere? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18870 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
On August 12 2017 08:02 mozoku wrote: Uh, yeah if I also have offers from Amazon and Facebook. Which most Google engineers could obtain. The talent pool that Google is drawing from has competitors with comparably attractive work environments. I could give you a whole host of issues with working at Google because I've interviewed with them and with competitors for technical positions and needed to be prepared to make a decision in case of multiple offers. They aren't the best employer out there for a lot of people in tech. Each person is different and wants different things out of their job. You're just strawmanning the memo or didn't understand it. He didn't assert that there was a difference in performance between men and women at Google. He asserted that biological and cultural factors may produce an eligible talent pool that is mostly male, and consequently Google's workforce would be mostly male. Due to factors outside of Google's control. how do you think stereotypes function? poor oppressive SJW google with its diversity hiring where only 68% of the workforce is male. how can a white male stand working there? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 12 2017 06:34 mozoku wrote: Neither do I? Care to elaborate? I'm curious how you're defining "wrong" here. Was it what got him fired? His views in the first place? How can you conclude he's an idiot without knowing his ultimate goals? If he was willing to be fired for publicizing the document or thought it was the right thing to do, then he's not an idiot for where he's at now. Getting fired based on a choice you made at work doesn't necessarily equate to "idiot." Also, to be fair, I doubt he suspected the document was going to viral within Google and leaked externally to a press firestorm. Sure, it wasn't the safest move in the world, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of people make similar choices not too uncommonly. There's more than one way to handle PR situations. Firing him wasn't the only option. Google chose to do so, which reinforces the image that they're intolerant of conservative viewpoints. Furthermore, you're ignoring the part where he talks about angry emails to HR from all-around Google calling for his head lol. Trying to remove any agency from Google as an organization here isn't really a valid assertion I think. the angry emails aren't from all around google; they're from all around in general; which would imply most of them came from outside google itself, probably from various activist groups. I didn't ignore it, you misread it. i'm not removing agency; i'm simply pointing out the obvious: as a company, if you give the company bad pr, they fire you. that's not a change of agency, simply a typical result of agent actions. it doens't remotely proveor even much favor the conclusion of intolerance of conservative viewpoints; that's a canard put forth by people pushing an agenda; occam's razor applies well here. I call him an idiot cuz I chose to; and because his stated assertions contradict his thesis, which seems reason enough. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 12 2017 08:07 IgnE wrote: you trying to police his income stream plansix???? gofundme has turned everyone into a potential beggar. how is society to function when exploitation is everywhere and shame is nowhere? Who's income stream? We are talking about two potential ways of earning right now. And way to hit to close to home with gofundme. I'm not going to lie that my wife and I looked at it when we were stressing about her surgery. Plus think of all the pets it saves. So much pet surgery. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
| ||
