Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Shame on Google  (Read 4541 times)

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 772
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2017, 09:38:50 AM »

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.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16597
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #21 on: August 09, 2017, 10:46:12 AM »

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.

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 772
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #22 on: August 09, 2017, 10:55:17 AM »

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?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 10:59:13 AM by James Clark »
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2017, 11:13:52 AM »

Their only concern should be their own bottom line.

so they shall not try to waste efforts to "increase diversity"  ;D
Logged

scyth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 741
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2017, 11:16:16 AM »

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" ... 
Logged

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2017, 04:37:10 PM »

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.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10922
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2017, 04:49:33 PM »

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? ;)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16597
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2017, 05:21:40 PM »

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 Utopa.

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

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 772
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2017, 05:34:12 PM »

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?)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 06:10:47 PM by James Clark »
Logged

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 772
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2017, 06:09:05 PM »


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.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 06:45:53 PM by James Clark »
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1322
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2017, 08:38:32 PM »

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,

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1603
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2017, 09:24:30 PM »

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." 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.  William Faulkner

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10922
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2017, 11:53:44 PM »

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.

Quote
...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?

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10922
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2017, 12:11:34 AM »

... 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?

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2017, 02:46:16 AM »

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.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 16597
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2017, 05:15:51 AM »

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 nave 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

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 668
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2017, 06:02:27 AM »

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.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1322
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2017, 06:26:10 AM »

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,

« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 06:40:11 AM by tom b »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3261
    • Flicker photos
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2017, 07:31:31 AM »

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.
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1322
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Shame on Google
« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2017, 07:57:26 AM »

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?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up