Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rajan Parrikar on August 07, 2017, 11:08:04 pm
-
http://blog.parrikar.com/2017/08/07/shame-on-google/
-
Amen, brother!
-
Should be interesting to see Google's arguments/reasons for the firing. I will not comment on the original piece, or political "sides". But to me, Trump is neither Left or right: he simply is for himself and his business.
-
A summary/reason of/for James Damore's firing:
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/8/16111724/google-sundar-pichai-employee-memo-diversity
-
Right on, Rajan. And, as Slobodan says, "Amen!"
-
Well, he seemed to have gone public (or was it made public later?) with a controversial memo that contravened Google's internal policies and culture. Google is a private company, so they have the right to fire people who don't fit in, I would have thought. I would have thought that conservatives would approve of that right.
What are you guys in approval of, exactly, that women aren't suited to high-tech jobs like his memo asserted? Or is there some other principal at stake here that I am missing?
-
+1
Respect,
-
Well, he seemed to have gone public (or was it made public later?) with a controversial memo that contravened Google's internal policies and culture. Google is a private company, so they have the right to fire people who don't fit in, I would have thought. I would have thought that conservatives would approve of that right.
What are you guys in approval of, exactly, that women aren't suited to high-tech jobs like his memo asserted? Or is there some other principal at stake here that I am missing?
Who hell knows? :) I, too, would expect conservatives to rally around the right of a private employer to do as they please.
By the way, what do you suppose the overlap is between those who believe Google is wrong, but still support the "right" of individual American businesses to deny service to same-sex couples on that basis? (I suspect it's disturbingly high.)
Regardless, personally I wouldn't have fired the guy, probably, or at least not initially. In general, I believe it's critical to protect objectionable speech, and I believe we all benefit from having a conversation about objectionable ideas. If it became incendiary to the point that Google's business or culture was suffering, then an appropriate business decision should be made, but merely having controversial ideas shouldn't be cause for termination, as I'm not a fan of "thought crimes."
-
Who hell knows? :) I, too, would expect conservatives to rally around the right of a private employer to do as they please....
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should ;)
... In general, I believe it's critical to protect objectionable speech, and I believe we all benefit from having a conversation about objectionable ideas. ... merely having controversial ideas shouldn't be cause for termination, as I'm not a fan of "thought crimes."
Finally we agree completely! :)
-
Regardless, personally I wouldn't have fired the guy, probably, or at least not initially. In general, I believe it's critical to protect objectionable speech, and I believe we all benefit from having a conversation about objectionable ideas. If it became incendiary to the point that Google's business or culture was suffering, then an appropriate business decision should be made, but merely having controversial ideas shouldn't be cause for termination, as I'm not a fan of "thought crimes."
That's sort of how I felt at first, when I hadn't really been paying much attention to it and hadn't read any details. But then when I saw that he had made some claims about females not being suited to high-tech work, it got me thinking that keeping him on would annoy all the women in the company. I don't know how high up the ranks he was, but you can see the dilemma if he had women reporting to him (and even if he didn't).
I agree with others here that prosecuting people for thought crimes is a bad thing, but this was more than thought, he wrote his ideas down and distributed them. I'm not saying he should be arrested for committing a crime, but no one should be too surprised that the company decided they didn't want him anymore. I can only assume that's because he was in a position where having expressed those ideas would interfere with his work.
You can have all the opinions and beliefs you like, but that does not mean there aren't consequences. About 40 years ago my first wife worked in HR, and they had to let a manager in her company go because he believed in astrology. What he had done was to align the astrological signs of the people reporting to him with the requirements of their individual jobs and based their performance reviews and salary recommendations on that. He didn't think he had done anything wrong, he was a true believer, but you can see where his direct reports might have cause for complaint.
-
A couple of links -
James Damore interviewed -
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=TN1vEfqHGro
Is the law on his side?
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google-to-punish-engineer-over-anti-diversity-memo-commentary.html
-
Typical left knee-jerk reaction - everything is racist, bigoted or misogynistic - or in this case "anti-diversity." If anything, it is anti-false and anti-forced diversity, and rightly so.
-
It was to be expected that J. Damore becomes a cause célébre of alt-right.
If an employee prevents a company from running at 100%, then he does not belong in it. That is not a leftist mantra, AFAIK.
Google has been named as the best company to work for (http://fortune.com/best-companies/). They must be doing something right.
-
I think there's a tendency to overreact, in such matters.
Of course, it doesn't surprise me at all, because we have exactly the same technique of shaming people into silence at play all over the world. Every group is using it. I would even suggest that it has been a strong factor in the Brexit decision: people have been scared and threatened by legal and cutural punitive reaction if they dare to object to the changing ethnicity of their own neighbourhoods. When it becomes a "crime" to voice your disapproval at the construction of a "church" devoted to an alien religion being built just behind your residence, then you become tarred and feathered by accusations of bigotry and racism. When you realise that the higher birth-rates of some immigrant communities outstrip those of your own, that it needs no revolution or civil war for your "tribe" to become outnumbered and, thus, democratically lose its position perfectly legally through the ballot box, you must be crazy not to sit up and take note of what's going down worldwide. The death of Europe as we knew it?
When you state that you believe that children brought up in single-sex relationships cannot possibly grow up unaffected by that unusual and - to many - unnatural relationship, you will again be pilloried for being insane or, at least, just reactionary or whatever else it may suit the rabid proponents of such "civil rights" to brand you.
It's called political correctness, and from the start, it has been a curse flying in the face or reality and common sense.
Far from preserving or defending women, it has objectified them far more than have the forces supposedly the traditional culprits. Was a time - perhaps I just knew a better class of women - when women could get pretty much anything they wanted out of life simply by being women and using their natural abilities to be homemakers and nourish family and affection through example. It was a far happier time when kids, younger ones especially, could go home from school to a welcoming family environment. With the increased cost of living, largely caused by the double-income ethic, in my opinion, causing higher prices to be possible, women now find themselves obliged to be out working at something just in order to survive or help the family unit to survive financially, if not spiritually. That has led to the permanent quandry: how much education should a woman have, how many years of her life should she spend in university if, when she starts to work, her life becomes a choice between career and children? That's a stress level that I, as a male, would hate to have had to face!
I believe that if a female student shows the aptitude, and many show far more aptitude in school than do their male counterparts, no career choice should be closed to her, But, at the same tiome, I do not believe that any special concessions should be available either. If you want to join in the race, then you better be able to run on your own. It's simple, and it's fair: you should be doing what you are capable of doing without artificial assistance which then become unfair to the rest of the runners. It's just doping under another guise.
And as with pretty much everything else that's amiss in this world, you can bring it down to greed and the desire to have more and more of more and more useless, shiny crap. The myth of perpetual growth is madness: it can only lead to explosion.
Rob
-
If you want to join in the race, then you better be able to run on your own.
That would make sense if all the runners started from the same place.
-
No female posters on this thread?
-
No female posters on this thread?
I demand that LuLa starts banning male members immediately, until the diversity reaches 50/50!
-
For all those peddling "diversity," start by demanding that the diversity of the NBA league matches the overall demographics.
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-09/google-misfires-on-diversity
-
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-09/google-misfires-on-diversity
The debate, in general, is not without merit, but why would it be Google's responsibility to further the discussion? Their only concern should be their own bottom line.
-
That's sort of how I felt at first, when I hadn't really been paying much attention to it and hadn't read any details. But then when I saw that he had made some claims about females not being suited to high-tech work, it got me thinking that keeping him on would annoy all the women in the company. I don't know how high up the ranks he was, but you can see the dilemma if he had women reporting to him (and even if he didn't).
Of course. At the point where his, um, "ideas" start causing harm to others or the company, he needs to go. Understand that I'm not particularly sympathetic to the anguished cried of the downtrodden, put-upon white male professional, but I'm fairly absolutist in the pursuit of the right to expression (although I agree that the right to expression doesn't absolve one of the consequences of said expression).
It's a pretty complex topic, I think, and one that unfortunately requires the assignment of relative value to what are, on the surface, two opposed but generally positive idea systems.
-
If you want to join in the race, then you better be able to run on your own.
That would make sense if all the runners started from the same place.
Up to the competitors to get their ass to the starting line - nobody else is responsible for that.
-
Up to the competitors to get their ass to the starting line - nobody else is responsible for that.
Sure, but it's not that simple. There are many things, ranging from childhood nutrition to something as nebulous as the verbal interaction with children as they are learning to talk that impact the ability of a given individual to "compete" in the marketplace. We can't go back and undo what happened to someone when he or she was 10 months old, of course, but we CAN invest in that person and work to see that the cycle is broken in the next generation. Unfortunately, our "marketplace" (and indeed humanity itself) is pretty bad at accounting for long term outcomes, and that predilection toward short-term gains seems to be getting worse, not better.
Don't, by the way, think the playing field is currently "level." Even though it's no longer legal to (blatantly) discriminate, not for a second should anyone think that outcomes are purely objective. IN this specific case, Google, a private employer, has decided to invest in what it sees as the greater long term good (or, more cynically, in a short-term position it feels with be a net benefit). Certainly the right complains when the government attempts to demand such "investment," at the expense of a private employers choice to self-regulate, so why the angst when that same private employer gets to make the choice unencumbered by legislative requirements?
-
Their only concern should be their own bottom line.
so they shall not try to waste efforts to "increase diversity" ;D
-
private employer gets to make the choice unencumbered by legislative requirements?
fired employee will sue and courts will decide ... then we will know about "unencumbered by legislative requirements" ...
-
Up to the competitors to get their ass to the starting line - nobody else is responsible for that.
Not something within an individual's control - the starting line is set by a whole lot of history and a whole lot of inbuilt systems.
-
Up to the competitors to get their ass to the starting line - nobody else is responsible for that.
Not something within an individual's control - the starting line is set by a whole lot of history and a whole lot of inbuilt systems.
So, we need a Central Committee to step in, interpret and correct historic "injustices" and make life fair again?
Hmmm, #MakeLifeFairAgain ... the left's response to #MAGA? ;)
-
Up to the competitors to get their ass to the starting line - nobody else is responsible for that.
Not something within an individual's control - the starting line is set by a whole lot of history and a whole lot of inbuilt systems.
What are you advocating? A big bottle with an even bigger nipple to accompany them through life? Get friggin' real. We live in this world, not some fantasy Utopìa.
In fact the truth is that the more you do for people the less they will feel any necessity to do for themselves. But you know that; you just want to push some egalitarian bullshit.
It's what marks the difference between doer and takers in this thing we call making it through life. Some get off the personal ass and try, succeed or fail, but they try. Others just sit on it and wait and moan and blame the rest of the world for their own fecklessness...
Of course it isn't "fair" what the hell ever was? It's reality, not a reality show. We are not all created equal, thank goodness, and our differences are what makes life bearable. Imagine if we all wore gold stars! Holy shit; the robots are here! Or waved little red books at one another all day! That would be cool.
Rob C
-
So, we need a Central Committee to step in, interpret and correct historic "injustices" and make life fair again?
Hmmm, #MakeLifeFairAgain ... the left's response to #MAGA? ;)
It's a fair question, but only when it's asked with the realization that the alternative is to knowingly allow inherent inequities to persist in society indefinitely. There's no perfectly equitable solution, but allowing "the market" to do as it will is a poor option when "the market" is currently biased due to historical inequities.
Imagine you're holding a poker tournament. One guy starts with 1,000,000 chips and another with only 100,000. Both individuals started with whatever their parents could stake them. Is it reasonable to assume that because the guy with a million wins the tournament 90% of the time that he's obviously the superior player? Is it reasonable to assume that, if you are hiring based on poker skill, that the guy that started with a million and wins most of the tournaments is the more skilled player? How much MORE skilled does the lower-staked player have to be to win?
Do we just throw our hands up and say, "screw it," or do we attempt to find alternative ways to balance the starting point (if indeed we are really trying to find the most skilled person at all?)
-
In fact the truth is that the more you do for people the less they will feel any necessity to do for themselves. But you know that; you just want to push some egalitarian bullshit.
On the other hand, when learned helplessness is a way of life, opening the door to let a sliver of light in can be a literal lifesaver. Somewhere between social Darwinism and socialist utopia there's an answer, but it's no more at your end of the spectrum than at Marx's.
-
To be honest the Trump supporters on this thread ignored that he admitted to grabbing women's genitals but still voted for him. So a bit of sexism isn't a problem.
Cheers,
-
To be honest the Trump supporters on this thread ignored that he admitted to grabbing women's genitals but still voted for him. So a bit of sexism isn't a problem.
Cheers,
Well there are plenty of HRC voters here that ignored the many faults of her, but that is a story for another topic, I believe it is called "Trump II."
-
To be honest the Trump supporters on this thread ignored that he admitted to grabbing women's genitals...
Who hasn't? Ok, granted, most gays probably have not.
...So a bit of sexism isn't a problem.
Of course not. Sexism is a wonderful realization that men and women are different, thank God, and deserve to be respectfully treated as such. Why would anyone want to drag women from that pedestal into everyday's mud?
-
... Both individuals started with whatever their parents could stake them...
Ok, let's ban inheritance. Every generation starts with a clean slate. Previous generation's wealth is distributed to the most needy. Even better, let's not allow the creation of wealth in the first place. And while we are at it, let's strip (surgically) children of smart and talented parents of those genes at birth, so that we all have an equal shot at life. The new era of equality: everyone has the same, is the same, and thinks the same. Average is promoted and celebrated. What is that other word for average... mediocre?
-
It's what marks the difference between doer and takers in this thing we call making it through life.
I think I'd take you a bit more seriously if you were not a white male. You've been playing this game with the controls set on easy level, so your comments just look a bit naive tbh.
-
It's what marks the difference between doer and takers in this thing we call making it through life.
I think I'd take you a bit more seriously if you were not a white male. You've been playing this game with the controls set on easy level, so your comments just look a bit naive tbh.
So you assume that all white males do well in life, encounter that mythical level playing field? If only!
The extension to your theory, then, would be for all non-white males to return to whichever ethnic mother ship from which they came in order not to compete within the white world. Or should the white male take himself off to theirs, instead? And what about the females? Interesting. Especially when you look at rap videos and observe the non-white dream at play, the same dream, oddly enough, that many whites share: the artificially pneumatic fake-blonde, shamelessly strutting and available female.
As an extended footnote: why would you imagine it naïve to suggest people do stuff for themselves? Are you hoping to turn that into a class or race issue? There are probably, proportionally, as many useless rich kids as poor ones, as many talented ones as not; as many spirited whites as spirited blacks, browns, or any blend in-between. As with this goddam thing about talent, ambition's there or it's not. You can't, unfortunately, legislate it into being.
As Slobodan suggested, your best philosophical option would be to eliminate or outlaw success and drag everything down to the lowest common denominator. That's easy to do; not so easy is to be inspired and to fight your way to your target. But, first you have to realise that targets exist and you should have one. And even then, once you get aboard there is never guarantee of getting to where the name on the bus says you should. Businesses, both corporate and one-man band rise and fall constantly. It's life.
Spare me the bleat for more tears for fellow man; most are perfectly capable of crying their own; I've wept my share, thanks.
Rob
-
So you assume that all white males do well in life, encounter that mythical level playing field? If only!
Nope. That's not what I wrote. So the rest of your post is a pointless non sequitur.
-
To be honest the Trump supporters on this thread ignored that he admitted to grabbing women's genitals but still voted for him. So a bit of sexism isn't a problem.
Cheers,
The post wasn't about Trump. It was about what you are willing to accept. Casual sexism, racism, sexual assault, etc. Posters on this thread, what is your line in the sand?
It seems to me that as an ex teacher that my line is firmly on the side of protection and education.
Regards,
-
I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel. If you disagree with their methods than quit and start your own company or quit and write a book.
Same goes if you work for a government agency. No leaks.
-
I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel. If you disagree with their methods than quit and start your own company or quit and write a book.
Same goes if you work for a government agency. No leaks.
It seems that for you sexism, racism, sexual assault is OK! Glad I'm not living in your US of A.
Do you hear yourself think?
Really?
-
I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel. If you disagree with their methods than quit and start your own company or quit and write a book.
Same goes if you work for a government agency. No leaks.
In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.
-
I'm a conservative and believe private companies should be able to run their organization however they feel.
This is never strictly 100% true and it has never been true and it is not even an ideal to which civilized people should aspire.
Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture. If the culture outlaws slave labour, for example, then no company, no matter how private, should be allowed to use slave labour. I don't think that anyone would object to such limitations.
-
This is never strictly 100% true and it has never been true and it is not even an ideal to which civilized people should aspire.
Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture. If the culture outlaws slave labour, for example, then no company, no matter how private, should be allowed to use slave labour. I don't think that anyone would object to such limitations.
Just a minor nit to pick
Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture law.
Corporations must abide by the law, but they should (their choice) abide by the culture. I think that was what you meant.
-
Just a minor nit to pick
Corporations can and should be allowed to define how they are run, within the confines of the surrounding culture law.
Corporations must abide by the law, but they should (their choice) abide by the culture. I think that was what you meant.
Yes thanks. I was using "surrounding culture" as a proxy for law, which is not correct.
-
So you assume that all white males do well in life, encounter that mythical level playing field? If only!
Nope. That's not what I wrote. So the rest of your post is a pointless non sequitur.
Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.
But then, that's a way to debate, I suppose, so pointlessness seems flavour of the day.
I shall leave you to it.
-
Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.
Not even remotely.
You and I may have encountered unlevel playing fields, but to say that these are comparable to, or in some way compensate for, the injustice suffered by someone born in the wrong get sex or race is, as I said, naive.
-
In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.
My view is that some services are just too vital to be left to the profit motive. Health, police, fire, trains, electricity, gas are just some that come to mind. How to pay for those? By not wasting tax money on our lazy citizens and many foreign governments abroad, and by precluding trade union militancy within those services from the start.
It seems to me that successive right-wing governments are terrified of industrial action in those sectors, and that's why they are happy to farm them out whenever they can: they can sit back and look the other way and, if pushed, shrug it off as not their fight. From the perspective of the left, the perfect set of tied-in voters would then exist, along with the circumstances for beer and pork pies in Downing Street once more. Oh, and perhaps another token pop star or two, just for old time's sake. You couldn't make it up unless you'd lived through the Wilson and Callaghan era and noted the games of one Mr Blair. And to think that each and every one of them got there by the ballot box.
There is something seriously wrong with democracy!
;-)
Rob
-
Indeed, not in those precise words, but the implication in what you did write is unmistakable.
Not even remotely.
You and I may have encountered unlevel playing fields, but to say that these are comparable to, or in some way compensate for, the injustice suffered by someone born in the wrong get sex or race is, as I said, naive.
As I wrote, I'm leaving you to play by yourself. You simply don't grasp reality, so there's no way I can help you out. It has nothing to do with compensation; it has everything to do with the facts of life, which are that no two people are either equal or the same, and that not accepting that is not accepting reality or, worse, suggesting social engineering as some crazed solution where non exists.
Over 'n out.
-
it has everything to do with the facts of life, which are that no two people are either equal or the same, and that not accepting that is not accepting reality or, worse, suggesting social engineering as some crazed solution where non exists.
I think I read some similar self-justification in a Klan pamphlet. "Discrimination is natural".
-
It seems that for you sexism, racism, sexual assault is OK! Glad I'm not living in your US of A.
Do you hear yourself think?
Really?
I never said that racism sexual assault and sexism is okay. What I said was that an employee should not go public with issues he has with the boss. If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them. You don't have the right as an employee to pass around manifestos of your personal beliefs or publicly say things that could hurt the business. The board of directors, executive staff and the stockholderd are responsible for setting policy, not some minor employee.
If someone is being sexually assaulted they have the right to go to the police and/or sue.. Ditto with racism.
-
Okay, I see where there is some confusion about my post. When I said that the boss can run his business as he wants, by that I mean as long as what he is doing is legal. You may not like his style, you may not like his approach, but as long as it's legal, you have to keep your mouth shut or leave or go to human resources to complain.
-
In June 2017 64 people died in a forest fire in central Portugal; the main reason was because the Portuguese emergency communications system is run by a private company. Guess what, the system failed. So definitely no, private companies can not run their business however they feel.
No, they died because the system failed. Do government systems never fail? Come on.
Jeremy
-
"If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them".
Google has 70,000 plus employees. Honestly, how do you control them? Punish those that bring disrepute to a multi billion dollar company, sounds simple!
I have no idea, but this thread is ridiculous… one person in 70,000 people, give me a break!
Really,
-
"If you don't like how the boss is running his business you should quit or keep your mouth shut or go privately to human resources and complain to them".
Google has 70,000 plus employees. Honestly, how do you control them? Punish those that bring disrepute to a multi billion dollar company, sounds simple!
I have no idea, but this thread is ridiculous… one person in 70,000 people, give me a break!
Really,
His manifesto was made public. The other 69,999 employees didn't do that. So he was fired. You don't publicly embarrass your own company. Work from within to change it quietly or leave. Or get fired.
-
Related (http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/11/google-firing-diversity-memo-shows-outrage-addiction-making-us-stupid/). For my friends here on the right, it's from The Federalist, so you oughta like it ;) For my friends here on the left, it doesn't let the right off the hook, so read to the end before you start to argue with it :)
-
I think the nature of his firing would depend on the terms of employment he agreed to. Could be an overreaction but I haven't seen the contract they had. I think chances are good that Google is covered from a legal aspect. PR is another issue.
As for the premise that Trump's win has brought more freedom, well it has to some but not others. My problem with that is that I believe underdogs (minorities especially) need a little more protection or the majority mob will steamroll them and their rights. That's just human nature.
But I guess the beauty of this is we can all add our voices without fear or reciprocation by the government, at least for the time being. I suspect this administration would change that if they could based on the threats made to journalists doing their jobs but hopefully that won't succeed. For now, just be sure your speech doesn't violate your employment contract.
-
Peter Singer, not exactly an alt-right voice -
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750
-
Peter Singer, not exactly an alt-right voice -
http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/opinion/google-wrong-article-1.3399750
The issue is not whether or not the guy was right or wrong in his viewpoints. The issue is the manifesto embarrassed the company and its executives. It may cause disruption in the organization with all the bickering that would ensue.
It will hurt the bottom line.
Business is not a debating society. The stockholders, owners, and the executive officers they hired are the ones who make policy. The tail does not wag the dog. When an employee goes out of his way to be disrespectful of that Authority then he should be fired. A company doesn't owe somebody a job.
-
… one person in 70,000 people...
Galileo.
[/quote]
-
http://blog.parrikar.com/2017/08/12/google-bent-out-of-shape/
-
::)
-
http://blog.parrikar.com/2017/08/12/google-bent-out-of-shape/
Really like your second picture of the bike - the one with the pylons in the background.
Rob C
-
I'm surprised at the naïveté of the fellow who thought his memo would provide impetus for rational discussion of his comments and suggestions. I feel sorry for him.
When the king rides through town with no clothes, the safe bet is to comment on his resplendence and good taste in apparel. To be the only one who makes note of his privates hanging out, and in this PC world using that as an indicator of gender, is a guarantee of "the sack" (or worse).
What a hoot. Google (in this case) illustrates brilliantly that the left is every bit as good at the implementation of right-handed power as is the right. Both sides are ugly and their "differences" are trivial compared to the totalitarian outcomes of either when "they reign."
The west, is toast.
Rand
-
I'm surprised at the naïveté of the fellow who thought his memo would provide impetus for rational discussion of his comments and suggestions. I feel sorry for him.
When the king rides through town with no clothes, the safe bet is to comment on his resplendence and good taste in apparel. To be the only one who makes note of his privates hanging out, and in this PC world using that as an indicator of gender, is a guarantee of "the sack" (or worse).
What a hoot. Google (in this case) illustrates brilliantly that the left is every bit as good at the implementation of right-handed power as is the right. Both sides are ugly and their "differences" are trivial compared to the totalitarian outcomes of either when "they reign."
The west, is toast.
Rand
But hey, that means it's catching up with the rest of the world!
Rob
P.S. I've always believed that any professional politician has an absolute mastery of being able to espouse any party or policy that will further their career; it can be left, central or right - matters not a jot: it's the ticket to ride the gravy train.
Why would any big business be different? All money feels as nice.
-
. . . any professional politician has an absolute mastery of being able to espouse any party or policy that will further their carreer; it can be left, central or right . . .
Too often, for certain. And, in my experience, it is more about power, than gravy! :D
Rand
-
From The Economist:
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal?fsrc=gnews
-
From The Economist:
The e-mail Larry Page should have written to James Damore
https://www.economist.com/news/21726276-last-week-paper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal?fsrc=gnews
Ah, the exquisite intolerance of "the tolerant" so beautifully expressed.
Rand
-
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
Thomas Mann
-
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
Thomas Mann
I think we have to go almost all the way to Mann to find a serious use of the term, evil. It isn't PC these days, unless you happen to step on the PC Police's toes.
Rand
-
Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.
Thomas Mann
Luckily, those terms, "tolerance" and "evil," are definened here by the constitution and laws, not fiction writers.
-
Too often, for certain. And, in my experience, it is more about power, than gravy! :D
Rand
Carreer? My eyes must be worse than I'd imagined!
Corrected - thanks! Just another problem with writing in English on a Spanish keyboard...
;-)
Rob
-
Luckily, those terms, "tolerance" and "evil," are definened here by the constitution and laws, not fiction writers.
Slobodan,
Honest question. Could you provide where you think "evil" and "tolerance" are defined? I know that actions and activities are deemed either legal, or illegal (with attendant penalties), but I don't recall the concept of evil being defined and codified. There is a lot of evil that is done that is perfectly legal in both law and constitution. Neither do I recall a definition for tolerance. Again, certain activities may be proscribed, but that's not a definition with aspirational aspects.
Rand
-
Rand, you are right, those terms are not defined as such legally or constitutionally. That's why I put them in the quotation marks. But they are defined in a broader sense. Free speech is defined in the Constitution and in subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Thus, free speech, within those constitutional and legal boundaries shall be tolerated. "Evil" is equally defined in the laws, as a particularly heinous punishable deeds.
-
That "Constitution" must be a pretty big book; now wonder why folks have little time left for making snaps when there's so much to read!
My personal concerns about constitution are about how rotten or less rotten I feel on any specific day. On some rare days I have moments of utter euphoria (possibly quite dangerous), so parts of the constitution make sense to me.
If anyone here knowns anything about Carine Roitfeld, they'll know she resigned as ed-in-chief of Paris Vogue after ten years in the saddle. Resigned... oh the luxury to be able to do such a thing! She now runs her own publication:
http://www.crfashionbook.com/
This is how she lives:
http://www.iwanttobearoitfeld.com/carine-roitfeld-photographs/apartment/
Other than being born with a dick, which obviously defines most of us with that appendage, where else did I apparently go wrong?
;-)
Rob
-
where else did I apparently go wrong?
Oh, that one's easy to answer: despite your educational context, you failed the kissingupsomebody's*** pretty significantly...
-
Oh, that one's easy to answer: despite your educational context, you failed the kissingupsomebody's*** pretty significantly...
I knew I should have stayed on at photographic night school! To think that I missed the best, most important part because I left in great umbrage 'cause a lecturer decried my then hero, David Bailey!
Come to think of it, he (Bailey, not the other guy) is still some kind of hero even today, if only because we are both about exactly the same age and still love photography and women... no, his work continues to retain its place in what's left of my now almost-empty respect box.
;-)
Rob
-
Rand, you are right, those terms are not defined as such legally or constitutionally. That's why I put them in the quotation marks. But they are defined in a broader sense. Free speech is defined in the Constitution and in subsequent Supreme Court rulings. Thus, free speech, within those constitutional and legal boundaries shall be tolerated. "Evil" is equally defined in the laws, as a particularly heinous punishable deeds.
Slobodan,
As I see it, the problem with the perspective you share above is that the definition of evil becomes "illegal." There are levels of evil, equally heinous, that are perfectly legal. Hence... our outrage when the big Wall Street bankers go completely unpunished for the 2008 financial collapse. All of us know instinctively that evil was at work there, but none of it was "illegal" at the completion of investigations. In fact, I'd posit that the "cleverness" of said bankers, to thread their way though "legalities" in order to do evil without violating "the law" is an especially good example of the kind of evil that mankind does that is "especially" heinous.
The same goes with tolerance. When what we consider "tolerant" (or not) is only what has made it into "the books" (so to speak) we gut the heart of tolerance. I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion. (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be. - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world. Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.
Rand
-
...I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion. (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be. - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world. Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.
Rand
Not sure if you are arguing with me or reinforcing my point, but it seems we are 100% in agreement when it comes to tolerance.
-
Not sure if you are arguing with me or reinforcing my point, but it seems we are 100% in agreement when it comes to tolerance.
Hi Slobodan,
I don't see myself as arguing with you at all! Just expanding your points to highlight something I think is important to the general discussion. Since society has lost any belief in transcendent values, we seem to have defaulted to thinking that evil is "only those things that we have codified as illegal." And, that "tolerance" is only to tolerate what some elite (or even hegemonomous) group decides is "fit to be tolerated."
I think this is a distrous development in western culture (in particular) that makes us ripe for the rise of various types of totalitarian control - all of which end up eliminating individual liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and even our rights to our possessions, rearing children, and even our ideas and beliefs.
I'm sure it sounds like histrionics, perhaps, but I'll be there were a lot of people in the early years of Hitler's rise to power that though those who opposed him on similar grounds were just being histrionic.
Same with any kind of rising "ism" regardless of whether it be left or right. It may have seemingly good intent (and that may even be true - think of the eugenics movement in the US in the last century, only stopped by the exposed results of similar thinking in Germany) but always ends up moving toward totalarian control. The "risk" of a real democracy, as has been the grand experiment in the US, is that true liberty leaves open the door weirdos. Sometimes, evil, and harmful weirdos. The democratic way of handling them has been on a case by case basis with appeal to transcendent values as the measure of "just how weird you can get without causing too much harm." A rise of totalitarian "values" merely suppresses and eliminates the weirdos (think Jews, the mentally ill, the physically handicapped in Germany e.g.) on behalf of the "good of the masses." Today we think that nothing like what happened in Germany could "ever happen again, or here." Foolishness if you just look around at the last half of the 20th century "all over the world."
And this is how this ties back to the poor schlub who had the temerity to create his "weirdo memo" thinking that freedom of expression and liberty gave it a fair shot at being discussed. He ran straight into a totalarian wall that saw his "thoughts and beliefs" as dangerous to the masses, and they killed him (metaphorically speaking). Their tolerance did not include tolerating his right to express his opinion / research (no matter how accurate, incccurate, or misguided, or naieve, or whatever). He was outside the limits of the totalarian hive-mind and so they killed him.
Rand
-
Slobodan,
As I see it, the problem with the perspective you share above is that the definition of evil becomes "illegal." There are levels of evil, equally heinous, that are perfectly legal. Hence... our outrage when the big Wall Street bankers go completely unpunished for the 2008 financial collapse. All of us know instinctively that evil was at work there, but none of it was "illegal" at the completion of investigations. In fact, I'd posit that the "cleverness" of said bankers, to thread their way though "legalities" in order to do evil without violating "the law" is an especially good example of the kind of evil that mankind does that is "especially" heinous.
The same goes with tolerance. When what we consider "tolerant" (or not) is only what has made it into "the books" (so to speak) we gut the heart of tolerance. I.e., my heart-attitude that says while I may disagree with you 100%, I will respect your right to your opinion. (Even no matter how hateful your "idea" may be. - Note that I say "idea," not action to cause harm.). These days, people are deemed intolerant because their "ideas / beliefs" don't pass muster, no matter what their actions produce in the real world. Tolerance, in this case, has been stood on its head.
Rand
Now that's a leap of definitions!
If anything, they were the most stupid assholes ever. It was just a few too many rounds of passing the buck, and when the music stopped... it was inevitable it would result in pear-shapes. I know one Italian mother who lost her son in NY because of that shit. Here we should be talking about stupid and greedy, and give a thought to the guys still lecturing in US universities, guys who were advising both government and money-men.
If you can find it, have a deep look at the video "Inside Job" which apart fom explaining a bit about the meltdown, interviewing some of the cast of characters, has some lovely movie images of Iceland.
Evil is another thing altogether - IMO.
Rob
-
Now that's a leap of definitions!
If anything, they were the most stupid assholes ever. It was just a few too many rounds of passing the buck, and when the music stopped... it was inevitable it would result in pear-shapes. I know one Italian mother who lost her son in NY because of that shit. Here we should be talking about stupid and greedy, and give a thought to the guys still lecturing in US universities, guys who were advising both government and money-men.
If you can find it, have a deep look at the video "Inside Job" which apart fom explaining a bit about the meltdown, interviewing some of the cast of characters, has some lovely movie images of Iceland.
Evil is another thing altogether - IMO.
Rob
Rob,
Right on. I don't disagree with you "fully." But I don't think evil is "another thing altogether." 2008, et sec, was also a crystal clear representation of what M. Scott Peck describes in his book, "People of the Lie." The upshot being that distributed responsibility is the soil where evil can grow, and at the same time the ruse used by "people of the lie" to cover their tracks.
Rand
-
Rob,
Right on. I don't disagree with you "fully." But I don't think evil is "another thing altogether." 2008, et sec, was also a crystal clear representation of what M. Scott Peck describes in his book, "People of the Lie." The upshot being that distributed responsibility is the soil where evil can grow, and at the same time the ruse used by "people of the lie" to cover their tracks.
Rand
Hi,
On one level that's perhaps valid; no, it is valid, but on the other hand, absolute power corrupts absolutely... maybe the bottom line is that all power corrupts as do positions where such power might be held. Our human condition: fallibility.
Rob
-
I picked this quote from the ten page pdf that is the full document the person was fired over. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership
How does one get factual evidence to prove that quoted statement when the person is basing this all on observing "traits" in the very same Google echo chamber he's contributing to? This person has no authority and should just keep to speaking about what he knows are facts. Observations are not facts.
Programmers should stick to programming, something they are good at. Because they are lousy at empathizing and relating with the human condition.
-
I'm not really sure why there is a sense of threat seen within the concept of male/female differences beyond the plumbing.
I distinctly remember grandmothers, aunts, a mother of my own, a wife and daughter of my own and two adult granddaughters of my own. I can't remember, clearly or vaguely, that their mindsets were ever to be confused with the male. They all appeared/appear to me to be distinctly female both in their preferences, in their attitudes to other people and to home life.
That's not to imply they are incapable of looking beyond the kitchen sink. The daughter has a degree and both her daughters have them in spades. My wife was brilliant in maths and science and she coached me through maths exams when I was wrongly employed in engineering. In due course she bore me two children and gave up her laboratory life to look after them and run the family home. She provided the backup without which I could never have run my little photography business. When she felt the children old enough, she went back to studying and took another lab job, just to see if she could still hack it. She could. But the rest of the other parts of life took a hit. A big one. Seeing that she had proven herself to be no more a vegetable post-partum than she had ever been, she retired from that and reverted to what worked to the broader good. Did she suffer? If being able to pick up her friends, go play tennis or go for a swim, come back home in time to have lunch ready for two hungry kids and sometimes me, too, then yes, she suffered greatly. If the value of a safe, secure, happy and spotless home means nothing, then she wasted her time when she could have been gazing through a microscope or mixing chemicals.
Having the intellectual capability of doing something is not, I think, limited by gender reality - pure muscle-power aside - but at the same time, I think females have an added quality that males often lack: they seem to me to have a far more educated grasp of priorities. In other words, the ones I have known are not as likely to get strung out on winning pissing contests as are males. So much less so, in fact, that this male preoccupation appears to have drive most of them right off the face of the LuLa map. Can anyone blame them? Or are we to assume they are not able to maintain an interest in photography? I think the truth may well be that they have realised that photography is but a subtext to life online, with the brandishing of equipment and claims to greater bragging rights the principal raison d'être, a spiritual tragedy in motion they are best advised to avoid.
And if you want to stay in the photographic world, then even there the differences are quite marked when you know who some of the practitioners are and how they have developed their styles through the years. No, that isn't to say one can instantly tell the dfference between a male and female-produced photograph at all, but seen en masse, there is a difference in emphasis (I'm chatting about fashion photographers here) that sort of makes sense.
In conclusion, I see no shame in both accepting that women are not men (and mainly vice versa) nor in believing that it's natural for them to be better at some things than at others. I believe exactly the same about men: we do some things well, yet with others we should just walk away and leave it to those who can do it far better than can we.
How terrible a unisex world would have been.
Rob
-
Another ridiculous quote from the pdf...
Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
Geez! Me suspects he's covering his a$$ in case anyone on both sides of the political spectrum calls him out on his bullshit.
Rob, very interesting and insightful comment. Intelligence in any gender is a welcome relief especially for enriching close, personal relationships.
-
Another ridiculous quote from the pdf...
Geez! Me suspects he's covering his a$$ in case anyone on both sides of the political spectrum calls him out on his bullshit.
. . .
Nope, I don't think so... he's just incredibly naive. The whole tone of his paper demonstrates this. It isn't overtly inflammatory, it is almost sad in its optimistic "frame," thinking that the powers that be at Google will actually want to talk about it. Sad.
Rand
-
Nope, I don't think so... he's just incredibly naive. The whole tone of his paper demonstrates this. It isn't overtly inflammatory, it is almost sad in its optimistic "frame," thinking that the powers that be at Google will actually want to talk about it. Sad.
Rand
Naively optimistic...mmh. Is that a fact?
I wouldn't expect such a level of ignorance about the facts from a software engineer who's very education and livelihood depends on facts and a thinking mind, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't share your interpretation.
-
... I wouldn't expect such a level of ignorance about the facts...
Care to elaborate? What are the facts that they guy is ignorant about?
-
Care to elaborate? What are the facts that they guy is ignorant about?
This is an excellent question.
Rand
-
I wouldn't expect such a level of ignorance about the facts from a software engineer
I suggest to look no further than @ photographers first ;D ...
-
Care to elaborate? What are the facts that they guy is ignorant about?
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
-
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
Thanks for the link. But this is a discussion among us, members of this forum, and it should not require reading a dozen of pages of someone else's opinions in order to discuss thing amount ourselves. So, take one or two issues and state them in your own words (not referring specifically to SrMi) and let's discuss that.
By the way, I started reading the article and already on the first couple of pages I am disagreeing with the logic of the article writer and his conclusions.
-
Care to elaborate? What are the facts that they guy is ignorant about?
He's ignorant about including any facts in his document. Being naively optimistic about Google discussing what amounts to his "biases" and observations about gender differences borders on stupidity.
That's about all I expect for you to understand, Slobodan, which I don't think needs anymore elaboration. If you need facts, you go look them up.
-
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/
the authors there write "Is coding a thing- or people-oriented job? " and then they proceed to make a point about... PM work "What about when you do it in a corporation with 72,000 people? When you’re managing a team of engineers? When you’re trying to marshal support for your proposed expenditure of person-hours versus someone else’s?" - that alone shows that authors lack basic understanding that a PM (even a technical PM who still does code work) is a different role than a software developer... not every developer can be a PM (or even a team lead) exactly because coding is not a people-oriented job, hence the you can see more female PMs than female coders... speaks volumes about the authors and hence about the article ;D
-
Thanks for the link.
here is one more for your reading = http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
-
If you need facts, you go look them up.
may he that will help you quote something instead of empty moralizing
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9538-y
-
may he that will help you quote something instead of empty moralizing
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9538-y
You're defining what I just said about looking up facts about an issue as empty moralizing says more about your ignorance. See, I already know there are no facts because differentiating human traits by gender will not produce quantifiable and practical data due to too many variables involved some of which are just the way humans think, there upbringing and living conditions, where a person is from, allergies, health both physical and mental, etc, etc.
Since there are no facts to prove gender biases and traits there's nothing but the deep gaping hole that makes folks who need to control out of fear of losing their job or raise in pay make up shit through observation or just looking at stuff. This is why we have racists, bigots and other fear based ignorance. We're animals in denial. This video might help you realize this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca4gA3mdW5Y
-
... See, I already know there are no facts...
Gee, that's a scientific proof for sure ;)
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Anyone who has not been in coma or on a deserted island for most of his life understands perfectly well on a visceral level there are gender differences in traits. That it might be difficult to quantify is more of a problem of the measuring methods in social sciences, not a proof that the differences do not exist.
-
Gee, that's a scientific proof for sure ;)
Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Anyone who has not been in coma or on a deserted island for most of his life understands perfectly well on a visceral level there are gender differences in traits. That it might be difficult to quantify is more of a problem of the measuring methods in social sciences, not a proof that the differences do not exist.
And the desert island idyll must have been spent alone. Better the coma, then: you might get a pretty nurse, and perhaps deep down, in that visceral state (alongside Russ' seer) you'd know.
This site is getting so very educational!
France 24 tv did an interesting 'debate' this evening (can one actually do a debate? Probably not - so held may be more apt) on Afghanistan and its chaos, and some interesting perspectives were brought out. One, the ultimate killer weapon, I suppose, is that the Tally Boys are patient. You can't defeat that without a country-wide genocide reminiscent of the one that did for the Cathars; the good people doing the slaying explained it very well: kill 'em all, because it won't do the innocents any harm - God will know his own. So that was all right. Isn't that just a wonderful, honest way of doing extinction? I think perhaps one can do extinction? Turn it into a verb? Or does that confuse it with extinguish? Where is Oxford when you need him?
-
See, I already know
but of course ;D
-
We're animals in denial. . . .
Interesting observation. "Nature red in tooth and claw...". Ah, the good old days.
Rand
-
Interesting observation. "Nature red in tooth and claw...". Ah, the good old days.
Rand
The flight or fight response is a bitch to overcome no matter if you're a touchy feely empathetic liberal or a hard line my way or the highway, eat my dust I've got things to do conservative.
-
The flight or fight response is a bitch to overcome no matter if you're a touchy feely empathetic liberal or a hard line my way or the highway, eat my dust I've got things to do conservative.
Yeah, especially for slow moving herbivores.
Guess they're just SOL. I think the chump who wrote the memo was one of them.
Rand