Page 35 of 47 FirstFirst ...
25
33
34
35
36
37
45
... LastLast
  1. #681
    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    Yea no, its not positivediscrimination it is positive discrimination. The only thing that differs is that you happen to agree with said discrimination.
    Your statement is simply wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by rda View Post
    You simply postulated that positive discrimination "unlike discrimination is neither unjust nor prejudice". That's not persuasive in the least.

    Like I said, I know what positive discrimination is, and yes, it is discrimination. If you want to argue that it isn't, you better say something other than simply postulate "it is not discrimination".
    Pointing out that tge two are not the same because one doesn't fit the definition of the other is more than enough to dismiss your argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Darkener View Post
    If you've never worked with Orthodox Jews then you have no idea how dirty they are. Yes, they are very dirty and I don't mean just hygiene
    Quote Originally Posted by The Penguin View Post
    most of the rioters were racist black people with a personal hatred for white people, and it was those bigots who were in fact the primary force engaged in the anarchistic and lawless behavior in Charlottesville.

  2. #682
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    Nah, dude, you're done. You embarrassed yourself beyond recovery; you've demonstrated you're unqualified to comment; and if you had the capacity for shame, you wouldn't have even returned. Hush.
    You have shown your convictions quite well; but your understanding of claims is lacking.

  3. #683
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumicide View Post
    (I've chosen, of the data, the most recent year, and the highest % of bachelors for women in a year)

    https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...s/dt12_349.asp
    <snip>
    It's pretty interesting that undergrad CS became more male dominated over time. I think I've seen that written about elsewhere, but I'm not sure that I've seen an explanation for it that seems particularly compelling to me.

  4. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleDuck View Post
    Your statement is simply wrong.
    What kind of mental gymnastics is this? Discrimination is discrimination regardless of if it's beneficial or negative.

  5. #685
    Quote Originally Posted by Krigaren View Post
    Ah yes, this ridiculous conservative hyperbole.

    You seem to confuse the idea of being punished for thinking something with being punished for directly, publicly saying it.

    No one is going to fire you if you're a fan of MLP, but if you go to work every day wearing a pony fursuit and talk only in pony-speak don't be surprised if one day they ask you to clean out your desk.
    This isn't plausibly analogous to the Damore situation. I dislike trying to extend analogies too far, but feel free to create one that matches the actual circumstance - Google has many employees that persistently push political agendas, Google encourages participation in these discussions, but Damore was castigated for mild-mannered disagreement on a point of orthodoxy. What's the right analogy? Maybe something something along the lines of working at a company that encourages employees to express themselves and have fun with dressing the movie attire of their choice, has tons of employees enthusiastically wearing Chewbacca and Darth Vader costumes, but fires some guy for liking Captain Kirk. OK, I guess it's legal to fire that Trekkie fuck, but no one would pretend that the company isn't fully in the Star Wars tank.

  6. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumicide View Post
    (I've chosen, of the data, the most recent year, and the highest % of bachelors for women in a year)

    https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...s/dt12_349.asp

    Your explanation of this gap is either, sexism/societal influence? Would you say there are 'no' possibility of any biological predispositions in play?*

    "claiming that a percentage of the people you work with (and who will have to work with you) are biologically less able and interested"
    This is not an accurate assessment of the memo. IF employment is based on merit, THEN we can expect that the individuals you work with are of equal ability/interest. And since it seems to track pretty closely with the degrees in computer & information sciences, the pool of women is simply smaller and 'should' result in fewer female workers, and Google's efforts will be fruitless or discriminatory towards men to artificially raise the amount of women:men in the workforce.

    Is it really "reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes" to say: "Well, I guess women are just less interested in this field, maybe we're just a bit different". It's a statement that simply appears to be true. And if that is enough to sway women away from entering the field, well so be it. If women are so fragile that they shatter at the mere mention that they don't seem to be interested in a subject, then what in the hell sort of emotional accommodation do they need? Do they need a fucking pacifier? It sure as shit doesn't seem like such a frail person would be able to survive in an even vaguely competitive environment anyway. No, I doubt women are this pathetic. I think they might just be more, or less, interested in a subject, and there's 'nothing' wrong with that.

    The question is just: 'why' are the more or less interested in this specific field? Perhaps it does largely relate to the social situation of a society...

    When the Norwegian government attempted to solve gender representation in nursing, the net effect was essentially null. Males just seemed less interested in the task, regardless of incentive. Is that because Nurses are sexists? Or that Norway is just such hyper-conservative and hyper-masculine society that men couldn't stand becoming a social pariah for becoming a nurse?

    You can watch a documentary that deals with this subject here,
    Brainwash 1:7 - The Gender Equality Paradox
    https://vimeo.com/19707588

    In this it seems to show that gender representation in technical fields is negatively related to the freedom of the society (~5:20->?**). Women in countries that treat women poorly seem more interested in technical fields, and where they're more equal to men, they prefer more traditionally "female" occupations. I don't know what research is being referenced by the documentary that supports this, and I don't care to look for it any further than I have.

    Assuming this is true, then why is that the case? Why would women desire tech jobs less when they're more free to choose? Could that have anything to do with biology? Or is it another societal influence elsewhere, and does that influence affect men and women differently, and why?

    Context should define the offensiveness of a statement. So yes, his arguing in good-faith matters, and no one should waste their time being offended by it or whine about it being "toxic".

    *I feel like an illegal alien happening upon Trump's (future, maybe?) wall. I'm not scaling a paywall to read that book.
    **I watched this years ago, I'm not watching it again.
    Of course promoting the idea that women are biologically less interested and capable in tech "reinforces harmful gender stereotypes," all the more so because it's unfounded--you don't have to take my word for it; it was enough for google to fire him for it.

    It also turns out that making relatively small changes to a program can increase the percentage of female computer science graduates from 10% to 55% in just ten years--unless you think there was an X-Men like leap forward in genetic interest / aptitude for women in the field just at that college, that's tough to square with the biological interest / aptitude argument. Where does that leave your, "Well, I guess women are just less interested in this field, maybe we're just a bit different" argument that "simply appears to be true"? If you're dealing in good faith, that's cause enough to re-evaluate it: when the numbers change as the culture changes, it doesn't appear to be true at all.

    I have about zero interest in and just about as much patience for social sciences in general, largely because of things like this thread, where anything can be demonstrated, and anything can be refuted, and one explanation fits the data as well the next--but even aside from its lack of rigor and incoherency problem, I find the question of the origin of sex differences not just pointless but monumentally boring. We're at the beginning of women participating in these spaces--even in supposedly egalitarian societies, biases are pretty deep and ugly, so I'd say let's give it a few minutes before drawing hard conclusions about biological aptitude and interests: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/u...002&abg=1&_r=0

    "Beginning in 2002, the researchers studied three groups of Israeli students from sixth grade through the end of high school. The students were given two exams, one graded by outsiders who did not know their identities and another by teachers who knew their names.

    In math, the girls outscored the boys in the exam graded anonymously, but the boys outscored the girls when graded by teachers who knew their names. The effect was not the same for tests on other subjects, like English and Hebrew. The researchers concluded that in math and science, the teachers overestimated the boys’ abilities and underestimated the girls’, and that this had long-term effects on students’ attitudes toward the subjects."

    http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0153857

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2015...ian-societies/

    The literature on whether sex differences are "hardwired" the way evolutionary psychology would have it is, on a good day, muddy, often fatally flawed, inconclusive, and substandard--the jury is way WAY out on this; generally people claiming otherwise are pushing an agenda, and it's usually one that's trying to preserve a status quo whose time is long since past.

  7. #687
    Quote Originally Posted by X Amadeus X View Post
    I’m looking forward to him losing and his humiliation being complete. He was an idiot deserved to be fired. Google should sue him for defamation.
    Wow, you fell for the propaganda hard I see...

  8. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    I have about zero interest in and just about as much patience for social sciences in general, largely because of things like this thread, where anything can be demonstrated, and anything can be refuted, and one explanation fits the data as well the next--but even aside from its lack of rigor and incoherency problem, I find the question of the origin of sex differences not just pointless but monumentally boring. We're at the beginning of women participating in these spaces--even in supposedly egalitarian societies, biases are pretty deep and ugly, so I'd say let's give it a few minutes before drawing hard conclusions about biological aptitude and interests: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/u...002&abg=1&_r=0.
    I really enjoyed this paragraph.

  9. #689
    Ive read the court documents and I absolutely believe he has a case.

  10. #690
    Scarab Lord
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    One path
    Posts
    4,905
    When employers have the right to interfere with your life beyond anything work related this is what you get.
    To lead and direct the work is as far as they can be allowed to be bossy.
    This is clearly overstepping it and not how you create a healthy work-environment or society.
    If you knew the candle was fire then the meal was cooked a long time ago.

  11. #691
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Maybe white conservative men should stop saying dumb shit which is causing them to rub people the wrong way?

    White liberal men surely have no problem getting hired.
    Maybe you should move to a place where white males don't exist. Plenty of African slums for you to move to, i'm sure they'd love your enriching "social commentary" about the evils of da white devil.
    Working on my next ban.

  12. #692
    Quote Originally Posted by Levelfive View Post
    It also turns out that making relatively small changes to a program can increase the percentage of female computer science graduates from 10% to 55% in just ten years--unless you think there was an X-Men like leap forward in genetic interest / aptitude for women in the field just at that college, that's tough to square with the biological interest / aptitude argument. Where does that leave your, "Well, I guess women are just less interested in this field, maybe we're just a bit different" argument that "simply appears to be true"? If you're dealing in good faith, that's cause enough to re-evaluate it: when the numbers change as the culture changes, it doesn't appear to be true at all.
    This one has simple explanation - manipulation of admission to get more women in CS and to get those stories in media. More men apply then women (twice more in 2013); absolute majority (70%) are qualified. Women get enrolled at double rate to men (31.7% to 12.5%). Gender disparity is still 54% men, 46% women.

    Is that what you want in Google?

  13. #693
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    This one has simple explanation - manipulation of admission to get more women in CS and to get those stories in media. More men apply then women (twice more in 2013); absolute majority (70%) are qualified. Women get enrolled at double rate to men (31.7% to 12.5%). Gender disparity is still 54% men, 46% women.

    Is that what you want in Google?
    CS was primarily women at the onset. The history of the profession should have been well known to Damore well before writing a memo that stated that disparities in representation in tech and leadership was due to biology.

  14. #694
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    CS was primarily women at the onset. The history of the profession should have been well known to Damore well before writing a memo that stated that disparities in representation in tech and leadership was due to biology.
    Current "biological determinist" explanation is that women have better venues in modern society that better utilise their skills and inclinations then CS. As result of society becoming more egalitarian and diverse.

    Why would you want more women in just CS, really?

    Yes, you can herd them there - per-college, per-company, hell, even per-country; why would you?

  15. #695
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Current "biological determinist" explanation is that women have better venues in modern society that better utilise their skills and inclinations then CS. As result of society becoming more egalitarian and diverse.

    Why would you want more women in just CS, really?

    Yes, you can herd them there - per-college, per-company, hell, even per-country; why would you?
    Really because I'm not sure what other new venues in modern society there are besides tech. That's a bullshit argument and you know it, as evidenced by your clear attempt to divert the argument.

  16. #696
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    Really because I'm not sure what other new venues in modern society there are besides tech.
    Really? You think from 1900-1950s when women largely didn't work full-time at all absolutely nothing changed, nothing new appeared?

    And they don't have to be new to be better for women, you know.

    That's a bullshit argument and you know it, as evidenced by your clear attempt to divert the argument.
    Why do you push bullshit argument if you know it's bullshit?

  17. #697
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Really? You think from 1900-1950s when women largely didn't work full-time at all absolutely nothing changed, nothing new appeared?

    And they don't have to be new to be better for women, you know.

    Why do you push bullshit argument if you know it's bullshit?
    *massive fucking eyeroll* CS was dominated by women until the mid 1980s. Feel free to explain to me what other, "better venues in modern society" exist in 2017 besides tech for women, that did not exist prior to the mid 80s.

    This is like elementary school level arguing/behavior, I am going out for a run so if you come up with a cogent argument I will reply later. Adios.

  18. #698
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    *massive fucking eyeroll* CS was dominated by women until the mid 1980s. Feel free to explain to me what other, "better venues in modern society" exist in 2017 besides tech for women, that did not exist prior to the mid 80s.

    This is like elementary school level arguing/behavior, I am going out for a run so if you come up with a cogent argument I will reply later. Adios.
    That doesn't appear to be true.

    https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...s/dt12_349.asp

  19. #699
    Dreadlord Dys's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    976
    Nope. He's a white male. He'll be paying the legal costs for both sides by the end.

  20. #700
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by HumbleDuck View Post
    Your statement is simply wrong.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Pointing out that tge two are not the same because one doesn't fit the definition of the other is more than enough to dismiss your argument.
    Right, my statement is wrong
    Its just me not understanding that words mean something completely different if you put them after each other.....
    It is still discrimination, its just that you are okay with that.. Still discrimination.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •