[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?

[Timsup2nothin]

That's kind of a mainstream view in biology.

Does it say somewhere in that article that men are more prone to taking things wildly out of context, or do you have some other excuse?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Do you have any idea how much research there is on the subject of differences between male and female neurology?



This publication alone contains about 80 papers on the subject.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/10974547/95/1-2

So, you are saying that; yes, you do believe there is a compelling body of evidence that men are inherently more competent software engineers. Is that the gist, that somewhere among those 80 papers I will find it not only mentioned, but compellingly argued?

 

[Mouthwash]

The guy also mentioned a difference in interests, meaning that women are just less likely to enjoy a career in software.

 

[brennan]

So, you are saying that; yes, you do believe there is a compelling body of evidence that men are inherently more competent software engineers. Is that the gist, that somewhere among those 80 papers I will find it not only mentioned, but compellingly argued?

Do you believe that there's a single paper that compellingly makes every necessary link in the chain that connects human activity to accelerating climate change? Or do you know perfectly well that's not how it works?

 

[Old Hippy]

So, you are saying that; yes, you do believe there is a compelling body of evidence that men are inherently more competent software engineers. Is that the gist, that somewhere among those 80 papers I will find it not only mentioned, but compellingly argued?

everybody knows its not an issue of competence
On an individual level you could find equal competence between men and women
Scandinavian countries makes a compelling argument in that the closer a society comes to gender equality in the law, the greater the differences that men and women exhibit in the choices they make in a career choice. The choice they make becomes more pronounced when left to their own choice. The exact opposite of what was projected by feminists who proposed the changes to equalise women's opportunity and your more likely to find women software engineers studying in India than scandinavian countries

quote by Hitler or Milo or J B Peterson... there's No consensus on that yet

“Men and women won’t sort themselves into the same categories if you leave them alone to do it of their own accord. We’ve already seen that in Scandinavia. It’s 20 to one female nurses to male… and approximately the same male engineers to female engineers,” he explains.

“That’s a consequence of the free choice of men and women in the societies that have gone farther than any other societies to make gender equality the purpose of the law. Those are in ineradicable differences. You can eradicate them with tremendous social pressure and tyranny. But if you leave men and women to make their own choices you will not get equal outcome.”

 

[cardgame]

Yes, the google memo was sexist. It takes a very forgiving mind to view it as anything but.

No, I still don't see how dongle-gate is sexist in the slightest. And this validates my perspective.

On her own blog, she states “it only takes three words: ‘That’s not cool‘”, which I agree with. She should have said them to the developers in question. Its important to note Adria’s entire job was conversing with developers.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, the google memo was sexist. It takes a very forgiving mind to view it as anything but.

To be clear: you believe that the reason Google's employees (or people in tech) aren't fifty percent female is because of stereotypes or discrimination?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To be clear: you believe that the reason Google's employees (or people in tech) aren't fifty percent female is because of stereotypes or discrimination?

To be clear: assigning random stupid ideas to other people is not cool.

 

[Hygro]

I'm rereading the Google Memo and from a rhetorical perspective it's obvious why The Team has categorized it as sexist. The Team makes all kind of "errors" in category for the sake of power. Would anyone like to point to what in it is particularly and actually sexist and not just a threat to The Team's decorum?

 

[Mouthwash]

To be clear: assigning random stupid ideas to other people is not cool.

cardgame thinks that Damore's explanation of why tech doesn't have gender parity is wrong (or sexist). There's kind of only one other possibility here, and I'm forcing him to acknowledge that. This is what is commonly referred to as 'logic'.

 

[cardgame]

There's a very distinct difference in the plain text of the google memo (which may come across as harmless, even reasonable) and what it actually spells out in the not-so-subtleties.

I'm rereading the Google Memo and from a rhetorical perspective it's obvious why The Team has categorized it as sexist. The Team makes all kind of "errors" in category for the sake of power. Would anyone like to point to what in it is particularly and actually sexist and not just a threat to The Team's decorum?

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

Speaking of "The Team," it would appear that Jordan Peterson took his side, saying that he got the science right. In other words, that's proof enough for me that the author got the science wrong, given JP's lack of biology education and history of sexism

And bringing him up (found him on the wikipedia article on the incident) reminds me that he has exactly the same approach. Speak logically, make vague but reasonable statements, while implying much worse but doing so in a careful way that makes it hard to call out.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

cardgame thinks that Damore's explanation of why tech doesn't have gender parity is wrong (or sexist). There's kind of only one other possibility here, and I'm forcing him to acknowledge that. This is what is commonly referred to as 'logic' (my posts will make a lot more sense when you use it).

You see only one other possibility, so you feel entitled to assign it. This is what is commonly referred to as arrogant priggishness.

 

[Mouthwash]

There's a very distinct difference in the plain text of the google memo and what it actually spells out in the not-so-subtleties.



https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

Speaking of "The Team," it would appear that Jordan Peterson took his side, saying that he got the science right. In other words, that's proof enough for me that the author got the science wrong, given JP's lack of biology education and history of sexism

What about Scott Alexander, who spells the research out step-by-step for you?

You see only one other possibility, so you feel entitled to assign it. This is what is commonly referred to as arrogant priggishness.

Either women are underrepresented because of factors external to them (like stereotypes or discrimination), or they are underrepresented because of factors internal to them (like biology, which cardgame calls sexist). Do you see a third option?

I understand that disparaging views you have an emotional attachment to can come off as 'arrogant priggishness'. Unfortunately, I'm going to continue to ignore your feelings because you have some disgusting beliefs.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I understand that disparaging views you have an emotional attachment to can come off as 'arrogant priggishness'. Unfortunately, I'm going to continue to ignore your feelings because you have some disgusting beliefs.

Which views do you think you've disparaged? The thing that "comes off as" arrogant priggishness is the arrogant priggish style you routinely use in your posts.

"I see nothing as an alternative, so I'm going to assume you are just stupid," makes for an interesting persona to adopt on the internet, but I certainly hope you don't let it creep into your real life.

 

[Hygro]

There's a very distinct difference in the plain text of the google memo (which may come across as harmless, even reasonable) and what it actually spells out in the not-so-subtleties.



https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-damores-google-memo/

Speaking of "The Team," it would appear that Jordan Peterson took his side, saying that he got the science right. In other words, that's proof enough for me that the author got the science wrong, given JP's lack of biology education and history of sexism

And bringing him up (found him on the wikipedia article on the incident) reminds me that he has exactly the same approach. Speak logically, make vague but reasonable statements, while implying much worse but doing so in a careful way that makes it hard to call out.

All this read between the lines stuff is hallucinated by the reader of things between the lines. That we can probably take Damores position and peg him for “what kind of guy he really is” doesn’t change the meaning of what he wrote.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

All this read between the lines stuff is hallucinated by the reader of things between the lines. That we can probably take Damores position and peg him for “what kind of guy he really is” doesn’t change the meaning of what he wrote.

When did you become an advocate of literalism?

I mean, here on the forum we have some fairly literal rules about trolling, but everyone knows when a post is intended to be trolling even though the poster can and usually does say "you are just reading that in, what I said was innocent, totally," so this is hardly a place to hone a sense of literalism.

 

[Hygro]

When did you become an advocate of literalism?

I mean, here on the forum we have some fairly literal rules about trolling, but everyone knows when a post is intended to be trolling even though the poster can and usually does say "you are just reading that in, what I said was innocent, totally," so this is hardly a place to hone a sense of literalism.

There's an order of events, and if you can't comprehend what someone is saying without collapsing to assigning them an identity and arguing from that, you shouldn't be collapsing anyone to an easier-to-work with identity in the first place.

Most people who are about "reading between the lines" find themselves there because they had trouble reading the lines in the first place.

As for your first question https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-to-be-reasonable.536691/

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's an order of events, and if you can't comprehend what someone is saying without collapsing to assigning them an identity and arguing from that, you shouldn't be collapsing anyone to an easier-to-work with identity in the first place.

I don't think it took "collapsing Google guy to an identity" to recognize his rhetoric as lifted from known misogynist group websites.

 

[Commodore]

I feel if I'm an employer I'd have rights to decide who's working for me and who's representing me, of course with limits that I'm not discriminating for obvious things I really shouldn't have to list.

This is what gets me. I'm assuming you don't believe someone should lose their job because their employer doesn't like their chosen religion correct? Now why, as a society, do we protect religious beliefs? Well one of the most common answers is that religious beliefs are protected because they are "deeply held personal beliefs" and it would be unfair to ask someone to choose between those beliefs and their job. Well, political beliefs are also, for most people, "deeply held personal beliefs" so why are they not afforded the same protections against discrimination that religious beliefs are? Especially when you consider that, for most people, their religious beliefs inform, or at least have a heavy influence on, their political beliefs. So if we look at it in that context, one could say by discriminating against one's political beliefs, you are also discriminating against their religious beliefs, which is something society has determined neither the government nor private employers should be allowed to do.

I feel if you're talking universal guaranteed employment,

I'm not really advocating for that. What I'm really advocating for is for employers to not be able to fire someone for something that is not directly related to their job performance. Especially if that employer was completely satisfied with the employee's work before finding out whatever it is about their personal beliefs they disagree with.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

@Commodore
Are you missing the distinction that the discussion is about actions, not beliefs? No one should be fired for their religious beliefs, ever, but the workplace isn't the proper venue for acting on those beliefs. If a worker starts assailing the customers about how they need an anointing of rooster blood to placate the voodoo gods they aren't going to get fired for their beliefs, but for their actions. And they can and will get fired for those actions even if they take place outside the workplace if they become a source of customer concern. If the boss hears a customer say to one of their employees "hey, aren't you that guy from the park that was chasing me with a dead chicken last Saturday" that's gonna be all she wrote.

Similarly, political beliefs aren't getting people fired. Participating in demonstrations, as an act that potentially offends the customer base, is what they are being fired for. Yes, the government can't infringe on their right to assembly, and can't infringe on their right to chant "Jews shall not replace us," but the employer is not the government*, so the employer can, and should be allowed to, terminate an employee whose actions make the customers uncomfortable.




*even when the employer is the government. The government is restricted in the laws it can make. In very few places does the law specify that when acting as an employer, the government is bound by rules different from any other employer.