Author Topic: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto  (Read 964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:30:08 AM »
Some big news in the tech world this week broke when a google employee wrote a 10 page anti-diversity memo and was then fired which has created some uproar.  Starting this topic to discuss this since it actually is something pretty close to home for me.

I work for a tech company, a direct competitor to google.  One of the company's goals this year is diversity.  Including bonus incentives for hiring managers to hire under represented races and females to get the company's own diversity a bit closer to match what we see in society.  Specifically they have pointed out that african americans, latinos, and women are under represented currently and those are the people they want to hire this year.

My personal opinion is that I want the company to hire the best people for the job, regardless of sex/race.  I feel like if you force this, or give incentives to do this, the talent pool is actually weakened and therefore does some damage to the company in the long term.  The group I work in is probably the most diverse in the entire company as not a single one of us share the same race so this is not me being racist (I'm the only white male on the team), I am all for it but just want the best talent around me.

Having said that, I don't actually agree with everything in the manifesto.  The guy makes some solid points, but also goes further than I would.  It's fairly well written and while I don't agree with everything, he does try to back up his points with evidence so I don't personally see it as being a dick, or being an asshole, or racists/sexist.  However, him being fired for it, sort of makes me feel like Google doesn't actually apply their diversity to people who don't agree with them.  Therefore I do feel their diversity is sort of contradicting. 

My company has a meeting today that is open to all to discuss this, but of course they set it during lunchtime on Friday (when the company pays for our lunch) so I am likely going to enjoy my free lunch and not join the meeting, but I also won't lie in that I have little desire to express my views in this company due to potential shaming.   I know I am not the only one as well in the company to feel this way.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2017, 09:21:01 AM »
Yeah, I have mixed feelings about it.  And I need to study up a bit more on the details, because there are a few things I am not 100% sure about.  But for starters, I don't think is really fair to classify it as an "anti-diversity" manifesto.  Soundbites from it can make it sound that way, but I think that is mischaracterizing the guy's intent. 

I think his problem is two-fold:  (1) it can easily be seen as anti-diversity, even though I'm not sure that's what he intended; (2) putting a "manifesto" out there for mass consumption, especially when it is likely to end up in the public domain, is not the way to go if you want to keep your employment.  I think it's a sad commentary when a company fires someone for speaking up about something they feel this passionate about that SHOULD be fair game for discussion, whether one vigorously disagrees or not.  But at the same time, when you put something out there that is VERY likely to offend a LOT of employees and likely to cast the employer in a bad light or at least call attention to the employer in a way the employer likely would not want, I have trouble faulting the employer for cutting the employee loose.

Shorter version:  I think society is a lot healthier when we can openly discuss ideas, even those we disagree with or find offensive.  And I find it sad whenever that sort of thing is shut down.  So in that light, I feel the way Google handled this to be a sad commentary and a blow to free, open communication and the marketplace of diversity of ideas.  But at the same time, they did exactly what most employers in their position would have done, so it is hardly unexpected or wrong.

Having said that, I don't actually agree with everything in the manifesto.  The guy makes some solid points, but also goes further than I would.  It's fairly well written and while I don't agree with everything, he does try to back up his points with evidence so I don't personally see it as being a dick, or being an asshole, or racists/sexist.  However, him being fired for it, sort of makes me feel like Google doesn't actually apply their diversity to people who don't agree with them.  Therefore I do feel their diversity is sort of contradicting. 

I agree with this take on the memo.  And this goes right along with what I was saying above.  I think there are a LOT of people out there who would say they basically agree with his main points, but that he went farther than they would.  But where he went wrong is in the way he went about it and put it out there.  So maybe it is true that "Google doesn't actually apply their diversity to people who don't agree with them."  The problem is, because of the way this guy went about it, Google is and should be pretty safe in doing what they did.  But I've already hit on that above, so I won't beat a dead horse.

My company has a meeting today that is open to all to discuss this, but of course they set it during lunchtime on Friday (when the company pays for our lunch) so I am likely going to enjoy my free lunch and not join the meeting, but I also won't lie in that I have little desire to express my views in this company due to potential shaming.   I know I am not the only one as well in the company to feel this way.

Yeah, you know, this is also another great way of saying what I said above.  Not much more to add, other than to highlight it.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3889
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2017, 09:36:02 AM »
Generally, I'm with Bosk on this.

I read the memo, and honestly thought it was well written, respectful, and well thought out. Obviously, it was going to offend some in his work place, he seems like a smart enough guy to see a couple steps ahead, I assume he understood he'd be fired for this, and I'm starting to wonder if that was part of his plan from the get go.

It scares me a bit that this sort of reasoned, respectful discussion is being discouraged. I feel like that's how we (as a society) move forward, learn, and get smarter. We could argue some of his conclusions or sources point by point but I think the bigger picture is more important in this case.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2017, 09:49:33 AM »
It scares me a bit that this sort of reasoned, respectful discussion is being discouraged. I feel like that's how we (as a society) move forward, learn, and get smarter. We could argue some of his conclusions or sources point by point but I think the bigger picture is more important in this case.

I largely agree.  But I think most employers (including Google) would say:  "That's all well and good, but the workplace isn't the place for that.  When you are in the workplace or putting something out there that has to do with your employer, you are representing the employer, so the employer has an absolute right to put the kibosh on it."  As much as I might like to in some instances, I can't fault any employer for that position.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3889
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2017, 10:32:54 AM »
I largely agree.  But I think most employers (including Google) would say:  "That's all well and good, but the workplace isn't the place for that.  When you are in the workplace or putting something out there that has to do with your employer, you are representing the employer, so the employer has an absolute right to put the kibosh on it."  As much as I might like to in some instances, I can't fault any employer for that position.

Agreed. I clearly see why Google fired him, I hear he's suing Google though? I haven't looked into that side of this story much. My thoughts align with yours though, it seems like Google kinda was damned if they did or damned if they didn't (fire him).

Like I said, this dude is clearly highly intelligent, I'm sure he saw and anticipated this course of action from Google, so I'm kinda wondering if he just wanted canned, or if he's under the impression this helps to prove his point, or if he knew this would get him more publicity, or a combination of all that.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2017, 12:11:02 PM »
I'll add that while I think his firing is a bad thing because it feels like it's contradicting, at the end of the day, doing what he did does put google in a position to have to do something so I don't really fault them for firing either.  It's kind of a lose lose for them, but they could have just used it as a way to have the discussion and reprimand him for making it public. 

Also, I don't doubt that this was a publicity stunt either.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2017, 12:18:53 PM »
Yeah, I don't know anything about the guy, but he's a fool if he doesn't take full advantage of his 15 minutes of fame and parlay this into something (which may have been the plan all along).
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2017, 12:34:04 PM »
Yeah, I don't know anything about the guy, but he's a fool if he doesn't take full advantage of his 15 minutes of fame and parlay this into something (which may have been the plan all along).

I saw something that he immediately got a job offer.  Not sure from where though or if he accepted.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3889
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2017, 12:34:35 PM »
Just read this on his apparent angle against Google -

http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-may-win-nlra-legal-case-google-2017-8

Interesting...

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2017, 10:44:18 PM »
I am a little mixed as well, because I agree with discussing ideas openly. I don't think we have all the facts, as this seems to have been floating in Google for about a month. The essay was well put together, but a little forced intellectually in my view with wording. The biological perspective with gender differences is basically incorrect, so the underpinning or motivation of the essay is therefore flawed.
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/some-scientific-arguments-james-damore-has-yet-to-respond-to.html

We can talk about gender and ethnic differences, and how concessions are unfairly made. Those are valid points that he has. He also however took it from a personality psychology angle, which falls flat as personality creation isn't solely a biological thing.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 11:12:26 PM by Cable »
---

Online Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 4861
  • Gender: Male
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2017, 09:05:42 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.
All people die, but not many people ever truly live

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13527
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2017, 03:26:48 AM »
But at the same time, when you put something out there that is VERY likely to offend a LOT of employees and likely to cast the employer in a bad light or at least call attention to the employer in a way the employer likely would not want, I have trouble faulting the employer for cutting the employee loose.

To simplify it even further: the CEO felt it necessary to cancel his vacation to deal with the fallout of this. If you intentionally publish something that starts up a shitstorm bad enough that the CEO feels he needs to cancel his personal vacation and fly back to deal with, I'd expect this kind of response regardless of what was published.

There are many issues I have with what was written (and with the boys-club nature of STEM industries in general), but simply from that angle it's entirely cut and dry.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1891
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2017, 07:39:47 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19121
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2017, 07:56:11 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

I don't see it as racist. Honestly. Especially since in almost all cases it's not "You can't hire white people", but rather "here's an incentive to try and diversify".

There are huge pockets of poverty in this country, primarily blacks. Between welfare, throwing money at education, and the prison system/law enforcement that goes along with it, it costs the government a fortune. The cycle of poverty between generations doesn't seem to be going away, and in a lot of cases it's because the youths in these communities see a world where their people are undermined and have no confidence that they can ever get out. If we were able to create professional environments that could allow the youth in these communities to look at them and say "huh, maybe there is a chance I can become something", and that motivates those kids to pay attention in school and get out of the hood, I don't think that's the worst thing in the world.

And you have to look at the other side of the coin. Like it or not, there's sadly a shit load of racism in the professional environments we work it. It's not always about hiring the best. I've seen an unbelievably qualified person have their resume tossed because "I don't even know where to start in pronouncing that guy's name". It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation. If it takes bonuses to circumvent that mindset, so be it.

My problem with the workplace diversity discussion is when we start looking at cherry picked facts to make headlines. I'll see stuff like "only 13% of the corporate tech roles are made up of women". Meanwhile, my graduating MIS class was only made up of 4% women. The blame is getting laid on the enterprises, when in reality, not that many women go into the field.

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2017, 08:11:47 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

I don't see it as racist. Honestly. Especially since in almost all cases it's not "You can't hire white people", but rather "here's an incentive to try and diversify".

There are huge pockets of poverty in this country, primarily blacks. Between welfare, throwing money at education, and the prison system/law enforcement that goes along with it, it costs the government a fortune. The cycle of poverty between generations doesn't seem to be going away, and in a lot of cases it's because the youths in these communities see a world where their people are undermined and have no confidence that they can ever get out. If we were able to create professional environments that could allow the youth in these communities to look at them and say "huh, maybe there is a chance I can become something", and that motivates those kids to pay attention in school and get out of the hood, I don't think that's the worst thing in the world.

And you have to look at the other side of the coin. Like it or not, there's sadly a shit load of racism in the professional environments we work it. It's not always about hiring the best. I've seen an unbelievably qualified person have their resume tossed because "I don't even know where to start in pronouncing that guy's name". It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation. If it takes bonuses to circumvent that mindset, so be it.

My problem with the workplace diversity discussion is when we start looking at cherry picked facts to make headlines. I'll see stuff like "only 13% of the corporate tech roles are made up of women". Meanwhile, my graduating MIS class was only made up of 4% women. The blame is getting laid on the enterprises, when in reality, not that many women go into the field.


Agree here, outside of it being full racism. Look, as it has been readily established here; in a better world, the best candidate getting the job is fair. But there are still massive holes, with income inequality becoming worse not better for all- that is a fact. It is even more pronounced with minorities. I have experience with the prison system, and used to work with young kids. The lack of education, barriers to it, and low% dreams (going to be a rapper or athlete) for Black minorities is tragic. From what I gather, we are all bunch of white people saying this. So of course there is an internal thing that wants doesn't want us to be passed over for gigs, because we all worked hard to obtain our experience and/or credentials.
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2017, 09:31:49 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

I don't see it as racist. Honestly. Especially since in almost all cases it's not "You can't hire white people", but rather "here's an incentive to try and diversify".

There are huge pockets of poverty in this country, primarily blacks. Between welfare, throwing money at education, and the prison system/law enforcement that goes along with it, it costs the government a fortune. The cycle of poverty between generations doesn't seem to be going away, and in a lot of cases it's because the youths in these communities see a world where their people are undermined and have no confidence that they can ever get out. If we were able to create professional environments that could allow the youth in these communities to look at them and say "huh, maybe there is a chance I can become something", and that motivates those kids to pay attention in school and get out of the hood, I don't think that's the worst thing in the world.

And you have to look at the other side of the coin. Like it or not, there's sadly a shit load of racism in the professional environments we work it. It's not always about hiring the best. I've seen an unbelievably qualified person have their resume tossed because "I don't even know where to start in pronouncing that guy's name". It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation. If it takes bonuses to circumvent that mindset, so be it.

My problem with the workplace diversity discussion is when we start looking at cherry picked facts to make headlines. I'll see stuff like "only 13% of the corporate tech roles are made up of women". Meanwhile, my graduating MIS class was only made up of 4% women. The blame is getting laid on the enterprises, when in reality, not that many women go into the field.

I'm not cool with "bonuses" to circumvent that mindset, because it won't.  It's not going to get Mr. Unpronouncable hired.  It IS going to get the next person in the door who can pass for the metric du jour hired, or the woman with nice tits "because we have to hire her for SOMETHING".   

You have the answer in your last paragraph.   You can incentivize people to APPLY for your jobs (in various ways) but your metric should be a periodic look to see that the percentage of hires is consistent with the percentages of people that apply.   

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11112
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2017, 09:50:27 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

Because the only reason these policies are in place is to counterbalance other biases in the job market. I'm not arguing that unqualified people should be handed jobs because they're minorities, I don't think that should be the case at all. I think that there are a lot of job opening where there are plenty of people who would be considered qualified applicants, the problem is that even with identical resumes Lakisha Washington is much less likely to get brought in for an interview than Emily Walsh.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #17 on: August 15, 2017, 09:58:56 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

I don't see it as racist. Honestly. Especially since in almost all cases it's not "You can't hire white people", but rather "here's an incentive to try and diversify".

There are huge pockets of poverty in this country, primarily blacks. Between welfare, throwing money at education, and the prison system/law enforcement that goes along with it, it costs the government a fortune. The cycle of poverty between generations doesn't seem to be going away, and in a lot of cases it's because the youths in these communities see a world where their people are undermined and have no confidence that they can ever get out. If we were able to create professional environments that could allow the youth in these communities to look at them and say "huh, maybe there is a chance I can become something", and that motivates those kids to pay attention in school and get out of the hood, I don't think that's the worst thing in the world.

And you have to look at the other side of the coin. Like it or not, there's sadly a shit load of racism in the professional environments we work it. It's not always about hiring the best. I've seen an unbelievably qualified person have their resume tossed because "I don't even know where to start in pronouncing that guy's name". It sucks, but it's the reality of the situation. If it takes bonuses to circumvent that mindset, so be it.

My problem with the workplace diversity discussion is when we start looking at cherry picked facts to make headlines. I'll see stuff like "only 13% of the corporate tech roles are made up of women". Meanwhile, my graduating MIS class was only made up of 4% women. The blame is getting laid on the enterprises, when in reality, not that many women go into the field.


Agree here, outside of it being full racism. Look, as it has been readily established here; in a better world, the best candidate getting the job is fair. But there are still massive holes, with income inequality becoming worse not better for all- that is a fact. It is even more pronounced with minorities. I have experience with the prison system, and used to work with young kids. The lack of education, barriers to it, and low% dreams (going to be a rapper or athlete) for Black minorities is tragic. From what I gather, we are all bunch of white people saying this. So of course there is an internal thing that wants doesn't want us to be passed over for gigs, because we all worked hard to obtain our experience and/or credentials.

But we can't cloud issues, and we can't just throw bandaids at perceived problems.   I personally think the "income inequality" argument is a bogus, agenda-driven argument.  Who cares what the gap is?  What I earn is no one else's business, and no one else is entitled to what I earn.  Conversely, what I earn is not at all dependent on what anyone else earns.  It's not a zero-sum game.    So if I earn 1 times or 10 times what my next door neighbor, so what?   If my salary doubles, it's not as if there is someone else in the company who's salary halves.   "Income inequality" is a way to generate envy, which is a necessary precursor to a class war. 

I don't understand how affirmative action changes unrealistic expectations for a given demographic.   That I want to be a rapper or a basketball player doesn't get solved by shuffling me into a dead-end job that I don't really want and for a group that doesn't really want me (not because I'm of minority, but because I'm by definition not the most qualified candidate).  I can and do support community programs that broaden horizons, for all children, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is never really a sound solution.  It builds resentment and provides fodder for those looking to undermine the system. 

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2017, 10:18:17 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

Because the only reason these policies are in place is to counterbalance other biases in the job market. I'm not arguing that unqualified people should be handed jobs because they're minorities, I don't think that should be the case at all. I think that there are a lot of job opening where there are plenty of people who would be considered qualified applicants, the problem is that even with identical resumes Lakisha Washington is much less likely to get brought in for an interview than Emily Walsh.

One thing my company is doing to help this is removing names off resumes.  I think that helps negate this and makes a lot of sense.  No one should be held back from a job because of their name, or the bias that may come from having such a name.

Online Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19121
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2017, 10:56:42 AM »
I want people hired based on ability.

If that happens to be a woman instead of a man, cool. If that happens to be a black person instead of a white, cool. And I am saying that as a white male. If I see someone of a different race or gender get hired instead of me who is the better qualified employee, all that does is motivate me to become a better and stronger applicant, not get offended or demand diversity.

 I do not want artificial quotas to be mandated onto a company to have a certain amount of each race/gender represented. Earn your spot based on merit, not entitlement.

And I also understand that this isn't a perfect world and there is bias, but what I wrote above are just my general thoughts.

100% this. How is having hiring bonuses to essentially not hire white people not viewed as being racist?

Because the only reason these policies are in place is to counterbalance other biases in the job market. I'm not arguing that unqualified people should be handed jobs because they're minorities, I don't think that should be the case at all. I think that there are a lot of job opening where there are plenty of people who would be considered qualified applicants, the problem is that even with identical resumes Lakisha Washington is much less likely to get brought in for an interview than Emily Walsh.

One thing my company is doing to help this is removing names off resumes.  I think that helps negate this and makes a lot of sense.  No one should be held back from a job because of their name, or the bias that may come from having such a name.

I've always been curious about how this works. Without a name on the resume, how does a potential employer go about looking up a candidate online or questioning a reference about them? HR must have to divulge the name at some point prior to the someone making the call to make the candidate an offer.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15704
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2017, 11:05:38 AM »
I actually don't know, I think it's done automatically through software so the resume hits the correct eyes without it there, and once they determine who to interview based on the nameless resumes, then that information comes up because yea, you need to call and arrange actually meet the person so the name will be known by then, but I'm only guessing as to the process.  My group hasn't hired in 2 years so it's been that long since I looked at resumes.

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1471
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2017, 11:14:03 AM »

But we can't cloud issues, and we can't just throw bandaids at perceived problems.   I personally think the "income inequality" argument is a bogus, agenda-driven argument.  Who cares what the gap is?  What I earn is no one else's business, and no one else is entitled to what I earn.  Conversely, what I earn is not at all dependent on what anyone else earns.  It's not a zero-sum game.    So if I earn 1 times or 10 times what my next door neighbor, so what?   If my salary doubles, it's not as if there is someone else in the company who's salary halves.   "Income inequality" is a way to generate envy, which is a necessary precursor to a class war. 

I don't understand how affirmative action changes unrealistic expectations for a given demographic.   That I want to be a rapper or a basketball player doesn't get solved by shuffling me into a dead-end job that I don't really want and for a group that doesn't really want me (not because I'm of minority, but because I'm by definition not the most qualified candidate).  I can and do support community programs that broaden horizons, for all children, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is never really a sound solution.  It builds resentment and provides fodder for those looking to undermine the system.


So taking this away from affirmative action as I intended; obviously income inequality transcends race Stadler. I'm not refuting that physicians should make more than janitors, or CEOs make more than a teacher. What income inequality does get at is a lot of wages are stagnant, while taxes have become less of a percentage on upper earners. The 1% has had more money over time- I'm not debating whether it's just or unjust, socialism > capitalism or anything. That clearly is for you to do. Rather, I am simply pointing out that it is occurring. And it is even worse for minorities- again, facts. Debating a truth as justified is something I don't do, because it won't change anything.

Maybe what *you* earn isn't dependent on someone else. And fantastic that no one is entitled to your wages, you are in the US which is a good place to feel that way. Although I don't know where you could live to not be taxed at all, unless it's under the sea in Andrew Ryan's Ayn Rand-styled Rapture Bioshock world.  ;) Back about wages being dependent, if someone works for a company that gives profit sharing, and profits are down, that person *is* dependent on someone else. Someone who played the stock market full time, as an amateur, *was* impacted by what banks did with loans in the mid 2000's.

And so we differ on affirmative action, which has been made clear. I will view the dead-end job is a better option than a crack dealer. Especially when that crack job ends them up in prison due to the War on Drugs, and costs the tax payers $60-120+ a day to house him. Let's remove affirmative action; that dead-end job may not be accessible due to poor education. And poor education is color blind; if I grew up in the hood, I wouldn't be where I am. No one says they cannot dream of being a famous musician. But that is why probably most of us where told by our parents, if we have dreams to be famous, to have a plan B.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2017, 11:24:05 AM by Cable »
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2017, 02:11:24 PM »

But we can't cloud issues, and we can't just throw bandaids at perceived problems.   I personally think the "income inequality" argument is a bogus, agenda-driven argument.  Who cares what the gap is?  What I earn is no one else's business, and no one else is entitled to what I earn.  Conversely, what I earn is not at all dependent on what anyone else earns.  It's not a zero-sum game.    So if I earn 1 times or 10 times what my next door neighbor, so what?   If my salary doubles, it's not as if there is someone else in the company who's salary halves.   "Income inequality" is a way to generate envy, which is a necessary precursor to a class war. 

I don't understand how affirmative action changes unrealistic expectations for a given demographic.   That I want to be a rapper or a basketball player doesn't get solved by shuffling me into a dead-end job that I don't really want and for a group that doesn't really want me (not because I'm of minority, but because I'm by definition not the most qualified candidate).  I can and do support community programs that broaden horizons, for all children, but forcing people to do things they don't want to do is never really a sound solution.  It builds resentment and provides fodder for those looking to undermine the system.


So taking this away from affirmative action as I intended; obviously income inequality transcends race Stadler. I'm not refuting that physicians should make more than janitors, or CEOs make more than a teacher. What income inequality does get at is a lot of wages are stagnant, while taxes have become less of a percentage on upper earners. The 1% has had more money over time- I'm not debating whether it's just or unjust, socialism > capitalism or anything. That clearly is for you to do. Rather, I am simply pointing out that it is occurring. And it is even worse for minorities- again, facts. Debating a truth as justified is something I don't do, because it won't change anything.

For "you to do" as in Stadler, or "you to do" as in beyond the scope of your post?  If the former, should I be offended? :) :) ;)

Seriously, though, you can't say "just observing".   It either matters or it doesn't, and by "observing", you're implying it does matter.  The 1% has more money now because their wealth generation methods are different.   What's that Chris Rock bit?  There's "rich" and there's "wealthy".  Shaq is "rich", the guy who pays Shaq is "wealthy".    That my grandmother puts dollars in her pillow case because she doesn't trust "The Man" with her money is not the wealthy's problem.   It's not governments problem.  We've had this debate before, and there's no easy answer.   You either make certain decisions or you don't.  It's the same as in the education discussion.   If I get $10 this week, do I buy liquor?  Do I buy weed?   Do I put it in a CD at the bank or invest in a stock?  It's not a race thing exactly (though I would argue that it is a culture issue) but those decisions have patterns and trends.   

We've got this mindset, this disposable, "NOT ME!", "not my responsibility" mindset.   

Quote
Maybe what *you* earn isn't dependent on someone else. And fantastic that no one is entitled to your wages, you are in the US which is a good place to feel that way. Although I don't know where you could live to not be taxed at all, unless it's under the sea in Andrew Ryan's Ayn Rand-styled Rapture Bioshock world.  ;) Back about wages being dependent, if someone works for a company that gives profit sharing, and profits are down, that person *is* dependent on someone else. Someone who played the stock market full time, as an amateur, *was* impacted by what banks did with loans in the mid 2000's.

Nice reference, by the way.  Perhaps my favorite video game of all time, for what it's worth.  But I'm sensing a slight, veiled scorn.   I'm talking income inequality, not interrelated variables.  If the stock market tanks, anyone who has those stocks (that are down) get hurt, and those that don't, don't.   The stock market is my point: IT'S not a zero sum game either.    Bank malfeasance, or lack of consumer confidence (a big part of the crash, even though that doesn't play well with the narrative, and doesn't translate into veiled Democrat manifesto movies out of liberal Hollywood) is not a variable in "income inequality".   If we have profit sharing, my wages are still not tied to anyone else's.   If profits are down it may or may not be tied to the actions of any one person, but if my wage goes up or down, someone else's DOES NOT move correspondingly to accommodate that. 

Quote
And so we differ on affirmative action, which has been made clear. I will view the dead-end job is a better option than a crack dealer. Especially when that crack job ends them up in prison due to the War on Drugs, and costs the tax payers $60-120+ a day to house him. Let's remove affirmative action; that dead-end job may not be accessible due to poor education. And poor education is color blind; if I grew up in the hood, I wouldn't be where I am. No one says they cannot dream of being a famous musician. But that is why probably most of us where told by our parents, if we have dreams to be famous, to have a plan B.

Of course the dead end job is better than the crack dealer.  Many companies, in a labor surplus, will not hire someone who is unemployed if they have an option of hiring someone who is employed.   

if the problem is "poor education", affirmative action doesn't fix that problem, it actually compounds it.  Why shuld companies, struggling to make a profit, have to accept people that are poorly educated, simply because we want to feel like we're doing something for people of color?  That doesn't serve the company, it doesn't serve the customer base (who now gets an inferior product) and it doesn't serve the worker, who is now in a position that perhaps they can or can't handle, but are there for no other reason that the single thing they can't control.

It comes down to priorities.   Studies have shown that one of the better indicators of student performance is NOT money, but rather the degree to which they get to participate in learning environments year round.  That tells me that it's a priority issue, in at least some cases. 

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2017, 06:06:55 AM »
I read this in The Guardian and thought it was pretty interesting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization

They quote some guy, Jordan Peterson, a youtube personality and university of Toronto psychology professor who hosted the memo guy on his channel and has large following of similar dudes. 

Quote
He believes the reason his YouTube audience is predominantly male may also be rooted in biological differences. “I convey very large volumes of very philosophically interesting and practically useful information,” he said. “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”

Seems like a real charmer    :\

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #24 on: August 18, 2017, 07:36:39 AM »
I read this in The Guardian and thought it was pretty interesting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization

They quote some guy, Jordan Peterson, a youtube personality and university of Toronto psychology professor who hosted the memo guy on his channel and has large following of similar dudes. 

Quote
He believes the reason his YouTube audience is predominantly male may also be rooted in biological differences. “I convey very large volumes of very philosophically interesting and practically useful information,” he said. “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”

Seems like a real charmer    :\

Other than his grammar, which betrays his claim of "philosophically interesting" information, what's the problem with what he said?   He said "he believes" - that's his right - and "may be" - which implies that it's a theory.   Are you really saying either he can't have that belief or that he's necessarily wrong?   Are you telling me that the beer companies that target their ads to their male customers (watch any Coors advertisement) are wasting their money and are intellectually wrong?   

I don't say this to antagonize you, but there's a trend to all of this that is disturbing; we're quickly getting to the point that we're using individual entities to characterize the group, and the irony of that is overwhelming.  Think about this:   we can have a group of 100 people, and use 5 or whatever to characterize the group (and fault the other 95 for not overtly rejecting the 5).   But think about that: if I looked at the NFL and said "wow; Ezekiel Elliot is a thug and abuser. Ray Rice is a thug and an abuser.   Adrian Peterson is a thug and an abuser.   The NFL is 67% black; these black people are thugs and abusers.    That is CLEARLY racist, and CLEARLY not an accurate statement.    Muslims, same thing.   

How is this not just fitting the facts to our worldview?  How is this not just one person prioritizing their prejudice?


Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2017, 07:56:26 AM »
I read this in The Guardian and thought it was pretty interesting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization

They quote some guy, Jordan Peterson, a youtube personality and university of Toronto psychology professor who hosted the memo guy on his channel and has large following of similar dudes. 

Quote
He believes the reason his YouTube audience is predominantly male may also be rooted in biological differences. “I convey very large volumes of very philosophically interesting and practically useful information,” he said. “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”

Seems like a real charmer    :\

Other than his grammar, which betrays his claim of "philosophically interesting" information, what's the problem with what he said?   He said "he believes" - that's his right - and "may be" - which implies that it's a theory.   Are you really saying either he can't have that belief or that he's necessarily wrong?   Are you telling me that the beer companies that target their ads to their male customers (watch any Coors advertisement) are wasting their money and are intellectually wrong?   

I don't say this to antagonize you, but there's a trend to all of this that is disturbing; we're quickly getting to the point that we're using individual entities to characterize the group, and the irony of that is overwhelming.  Think about this:   we can have a group of 100 people, and use 5 or whatever to characterize the group (and fault the other 95 for not overtly rejecting the 5).   But think about that: if I looked at the NFL and said "wow; Ezekiel Elliot is a thug and abuser. Ray Rice is a thug and an abuser.   Adrian Peterson is a thug and an abuser.   The NFL is 67% black; these black people are thugs and abusers.    That is CLEARLY racist, and CLEARLY not an accurate statement.    Muslims, same thing.   

How is this not just fitting the facts to our worldview?  How is this not just one person prioritizing their prejudice?

Honestly I know you're most likely not  intentionally antagonazing me, or others, but it really feels that way sometimes. 

As for this guy I quoted, this statement "You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics" reads like something out of the 1950s or something,  come on. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2017, 08:23:34 AM »
I read this in The Guardian and thought it was pretty interesting https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/13/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-white-men-radicalization

They quote some guy, Jordan Peterson, a youtube personality and university of Toronto psychology professor who hosted the memo guy on his channel and has large following of similar dudes. 

Quote
He believes the reason his YouTube audience is predominantly male may also be rooted in biological differences. “I convey very large volumes of very philosophically interesting and practically useful information,” he said. “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”

Seems like a real charmer    :\

Other than his grammar, which betrays his claim of "philosophically interesting" information, what's the problem with what he said?   He said "he believes" - that's his right - and "may be" - which implies that it's a theory.   Are you really saying either he can't have that belief or that he's necessarily wrong?   Are you telling me that the beer companies that target their ads to their male customers (watch any Coors advertisement) are wasting their money and are intellectually wrong?   

I don't say this to antagonize you, but there's a trend to all of this that is disturbing; we're quickly getting to the point that we're using individual entities to characterize the group, and the irony of that is overwhelming.  Think about this:   we can have a group of 100 people, and use 5 or whatever to characterize the group (and fault the other 95 for not overtly rejecting the 5).   But think about that: if I looked at the NFL and said "wow; Ezekiel Elliot is a thug and abuser. Ray Rice is a thug and an abuser.   Adrian Peterson is a thug and an abuser.   The NFL is 67% black; these black people are thugs and abusers.    That is CLEARLY racist, and CLEARLY not an accurate statement.    Muslims, same thing.   

How is this not just fitting the facts to our worldview?  How is this not just one person prioritizing their prejudice?

Honestly I know you're most likely not  intentionally antagonazing me, or others, but it really feels that way sometimes. 

As for this guy I quoted, this statement "You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics" reads like something out of the 1950s or something,  come on.

Well, I'm sorry; I'm really not, and I was trying to point out a bigger trend beyond you.   We have an incredible capacity as humans to be deceitful to ourselves.  I do it; I try not to, but I'm human and I make mistakes and I am imperfect.  It is a fine line, trying to find patterns while not being prejudicial.   

I think what's relevant to this conversation is that our society has relatively recently "decided" that the line for "pattern" and "prejudice" is different when you're talking about "race".   Trump erred in not acknowledging that.   The odds are, there was at least ONE PERSON in that crowd, even in the original protestor group, that we would consider a "nice person" in any other context.   He was wrong for picking that moment to say it.

Do you remember the concert that was held in NYC immediately after 9/11?  And all these famous musicians came out and expressed their solidarity with the Americans, the New Yorkers, that felt the brunt of the attacks, and raised money to support the surviving first responders and the families of those that didn't?   And Richard Gere came out and said something advocating "non-violent tolerance" and was booed?   He wasn't wrong, per se (or at least, his opinion had merit and was worth considering) but it wasn't the right moment.  HE even acknowledged that, saying something to the effect of "You're not ready to hear that right now, but that's okay".  Was that audience correct in shutting down any talk that wasn't "Kill them towelhead motherfuckers"?   I don't think so.   That audience didn't think there was any point to "alternative viewpoints", but I think we can agree that in the bigger picture - where the outcome was ultimately Iraq - there certainly was a point to "alternative viewpoints". 

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #27 on: August 18, 2017, 08:29:53 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup" ,  that's really not the same as Richard Gere advocating for tolerance on behalf of muslims in the wrong context.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #28 on: August 18, 2017, 08:42:44 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #29 on: August 18, 2017, 08:53:49 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

I would posit that  with “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”  I'm not the one dumbing things down.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #30 on: August 18, 2017, 09:05:00 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

I would posit that  with “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”  I'm not the one dumbing things down.

If that is so, then I would expect that you could make a cogent argument that addresses the actual substance of what he said.  Grabbing a soundbite out of context and addressing it with the equivalent of an eyeroll doesn't cut it.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 284
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #31 on: August 18, 2017, 09:11:51 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

I would posit that  with “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”  I'm not the one dumbing things down.

If that is so, then I would expect that you could make a cogent argument that addresses the actual substance of what he said.  Grabbing a soundbite out of context and addressing it with the equivalent of an eyeroll doesn't cut it.

See that's why I have so much trouble with you and Stadler.  Why in 2017 should I  prove that women are interested in more than aesthetics?   

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #32 on: August 18, 2017, 09:17:10 AM »
See that's why I have so much trouble with you and Stadler.  Why in 2017 should I  prove that women are interested in more than aesthetics?

Well, two answers:

1.  You shouldn't, because that isn't what was actually said.  Unless, again, you are focusing on the soundbite out of context and ignoring the overall message.

2.  But even if that is somehow what you understand the message to be saying, you should because, regardless of 2017 or whatever year, that is how civil discussion works.  You make a point and you support it with evidence.  Throwing up a strawman and just throwing an eyeroll at it is NOT discussion.  And if you aren't here for discussion, then...well, you shouldn't be here, because you are not really grasping the point of a discussion forum.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #33 on: August 18, 2017, 09:22:05 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

I would posit that  with “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”  I'm not the one dumbing things down.

Is he wrong?   Assuming you say "yes", how do you know?  On what is he basing that conclusion?   Have you seen the data?  Is the percentage of people watching him broken down according to general demographics or something different?  The population of America is about 49% male, 51% female.  Is that the breakdown of his YouTube channel?  Tumbler?  Pinterest? 

I looked it up, because these questions aren't "givens".   Pinterest:  80% of Pinterest users are female.  http://marketingland.com/report-92-percent-pinterest-pins-made-women-83394  Youtube?  Predominantly male.   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/social-media-by-gender-women-pinterest-men-reddit-infographic_n_1613812.html

I can't find Tumblr.  I don't even know what that is, to be honest.   

Is Coors wrong for thinking that men "are higher interest" ("men can has cheeseburger"?) in sports and beer than women?  If they have data that shows that some percentage greater than 50% of their sales is to men, they can plausibly make that decision for their marketing team.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9140
  • Gender: Male
Re: Google's Anti-Diversity Manifesto
« Reply #34 on: August 18, 2017, 09:24:21 AM »
but this guy is essentially saying "guys like science but women like makeup"

Well, except that he's NOT saying that.  And the problem with dumbing it down to such an excessive level is:
1.  So grossly oversimplifying his point to absurdity doesn't allow one to actually understand what he actually IS saying, which prevents one from considering whether there might even possibly be some merit to it or at least something worth exploring or challenging one's beliefs on, whether the guy is actually right or wrong.

2.  More importantly, as Stadler said, dumbing it down to such an excessively absurd level is denying a person the right to reason for themselves and draw a conclusion that is contrary.  No matter how "correct" a majority opinion might be, we don't advance as a society when we tell others what they HAVE TO believe.  It just doesn't work that way.

I would posit that  with “You see that men are higher interest in ideas and women are higher interest in aesthetics.”  I'm not the one dumbing things down.

If that is so, then I would expect that you could make a cogent argument that addresses the actual substance of what he said.  Grabbing a soundbite out of context and addressing it with the equivalent of an eyeroll doesn't cut it.

See that's why I have so much trouble with you and Stadler.  Why in 2017 should I  prove that women are interested in more than aesthetics?

Because you're the one calling him out on that point.   If you SAY Peterson is wrong for saying that, you have the burden of proof of SHOWING he's wrong.   You don't just get to say shit because it sounds good.  This is kind of the essence of my argument with Jingle.   "Because you think it" isn't a legitimate answer (it's not for me, either, by the way, so no, I'm not attacking you).

"Opinions" are not "facts" and cannot be interchanged with them, despite what social media wants you to believe.