ewerk 26351 Posted July 15, 2017 Share Posted July 15, 2017 Strange behaviour from him, he always seemed like such a level-headed, down to earth guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5912 Posted July 16, 2017 Share Posted July 16, 2017 Speaking of level headed blokes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted July 16, 2017 Author Share Posted July 16, 2017 Never really liked a Bon Iver (style) song before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted July 17, 2017 Share Posted July 17, 2017 On 7/14/2017 at 8:37 AM, Meenzer said: I see Milo's book sold 152 copies in the UK. Anyone here going to own up to having bought it? Fuck I sold that many on Apple ibooks 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Saw this. The SJW contingent have truly shot themselves in the foot with this one. The level of misrepresentation going on in the Guardian is utterly galling. I read the damn memo. Its thoughtful, constructive, and sets out a positive vision for company diversity. The way the Guardian have tackled it absolutely confirms to me that 'facts are no longer sacred - ideology is'. Edited August 9, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 From just scant research on it I see massive blow back coming for Goolag. Big Time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Park Life said: From just scant research on it I see massive blow back coming for Goolag. Big Time! I suspect he's going to get a substantial amount when he sues them. If I was him, I'd then move on to the Guardian. Edited August 9, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Rayvin said: I suspect he's going to get a substantial amount when he sues them. If I was him, I'd then move on to the Guardian. What will he get money for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Just now, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: What will he get money for? Unfair dismissal, I would argue. They've sacked him, IMO, because they're in the middle of being sued by 60 women over gender pay discrepencies. Nothing to do with him, but they don't need this PR catastrophe. So they'll have worked out that a $10m settlement will cost them less in the long run. Having read the memo, I don't think they have any case whatsoever. The science has been supported by academics in related fields, and the opinion it offered was constructive. From the Guardian, defamation. They are outright lying about it man. I've never seen it this blatant before... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Rayvin said: Unfair dismissal, I would argue. They've sacked him, IMO, because they're in the middle of being sued by 60 women over gender pay discrepencies. Nothing to do with him, but they don't need this PR catastrophe. So they'll have worked out that a $10m settlement will cost them less in the long run. Having read the memo, I don't think they have any case whatsoever. The science has been supported by academics in related fields, and the opinion it offered was constructive. From the Guardian, defamation. They are outright lying about it man. I've never seen it this blatant before... So you've read the article (I have) and agree that women aren't as good at computer programming because of biological differences. He cites scientific studies on the differences between the genders then makes a huge leap connecting this to tech engineering ability. He then without checking sends this memo out using the company email network. He wouldn't get protection in GB for that never mind USA. Oh and I like how we're posting alt right youtube channels as evidence now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: So you've read the article (I have) and agree that women aren't as good at computer programming because of biological differences. He cites scientific studies on the differences between the genders then makes a huge leap connecting this to tech engineering ability. He then without checking sends this memo out using the company email network. He wouldn't get protection in GB for that never mind USA. Oh and I like how we're posting alt right youtube channels as evidence now. I read the memo, yes. The guy has been backed up in his conclusions by academics in the field and more importantly his view to my eye was more that these differences exist, and we should cater for diversity by improving organisational culture to be more support of traits typically found in women, and that doing so would allow the fostering of a more genuine form of diversity. There is nothing wrong with making a statement like this. Whether biological or through socialization, he is right about general character trait differences between genders and goes to some lengths to explain that these are general traits rather than inevitable ones. So his argument is that we can either set quotas to arbitrarily hire women into roles they aren't necessarily well suited for, which clearly isn't working very well given the class action lawsuit Google is facing over a related issue, or you can change the culture and the way the workplace values the contributions of women. Google apparently allows it's employees to send out reports like this as part of an exchange of ideas. It looks strange to me but if they allow others to do it then there's a precedent. The guy isn't a sexist on any metric that makes sense. He's not having a dig at women, and he supports his arguments with scientific studies. It's developed into a shitstorm because the science flies in the face of what the ideologues are saying. The really sad thing here is that the right is going to use this as a stick to beat the left with for fucking years. This sort of nonsense makes us look like we're scared of debate and deniers of science. As for the YouTube video, I haven't actually watched it. There's plenty of non-alt right support for him though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Just now, Rayvin said: I read the memo, yes. The guy has been backed up in his conclusions by academics in the field and more importantly his view to my eye was more that these differences exist, and we should cater for diversity by improving organisational culture to be more support of traits typically found in women, and that doing so would allow the fostering of a more genuine form of diversity. There is nothing wrong with making a statement like this. Whether biological or through socialization, he is right about general character trait differences between genders and goes to some lengths to explain that these are general traits rather than inevitable ones. So his argument is that we can either set quotas to arbitrarily hire women into roles they aren't necessarily well suited for, which clearly isn't working very well given the class action lawsuit Google is facing over a related issue, or you can change the culture and the way the workplace values the contributions of women. Google apparently allows it's employees to send out reports like this as part of an exchange of ideas. It looks strange to me but if they allow others to do it then there's a precedent. The guy isn't a sexist on any metric that makes sense. He's not having a dig at women, and he supports his arguments with scientific studies. It's developed into a shitstorm because the science flies in the face of what the ideologues are saying. The really sad thing here is that the right is going to use this as a stick to beat the left with for fucking years. This sort of nonsense makes us look like we're scared of debate and deniers of science. As for the YouTube video, I haven't actually watched it. There's plenty of non-alt right support for him though. He's not right at all, I've been working in IT for some years now and men are not better programmers than women. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26351 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 54 minutes ago, Rayvin said: I read the memo, yes. The guy has been backed up in his conclusions by academics in the field and more importantly his view to my eye was more that these differences exist, and we should cater for diversity by improving organisational culture to be more support of traits typically found in women, and that doing so would allow the fostering of a more genuine form of diversity. There is nothing wrong with making a statement like this. Whether biological or through socialization, he is right about general character trait differences between genders and goes to some lengths to explain that these are general traits rather than inevitable ones. So his argument is that we can either set quotas to arbitrarily hire women into roles they aren't necessarily well suited for, which clearly isn't working very well given the class action lawsuit Google is facing over a related issue, or you can change the culture and the way the workplace values the contributions of women. Google apparently allows it's employees to send out reports like this as part of an exchange of ideas. It looks strange to me but if they allow others to do it then there's a precedent. The guy isn't a sexist on any metric that makes sense. He's not having a dig at women, and he supports his arguments with scientific studies. It's developed into a shitstorm because the science flies in the face of what the ideologues are saying. The really sad thing here is that the right is going to use this as a stick to beat the left with for fucking years. This sort of nonsense makes us look like we're scared of debate and deniers of science. As for the YouTube video, I haven't actually watched it. There's plenty of non-alt right support for him though. When did you first realise that you hate women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26351 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 53 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: He's not right at all, I've been working in IT for some years now and men are not better programmers than women. And your SEVERAL years in IT allows you to make that assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 58 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: He's not right at all, I've been working in IT for some years now and men are not better programmers than women. I've just re-skim read the whole thing looking for the section where he claims that. I can't find it. Can you please cite it specifically as this may be the thing I've missed in all of this. As far as I can see, nowhere does he make the case that women are inferior programmers. He makes the case that people who don't prioritise things that programmers need to do make for poor programmers, and that the reason Google struggles to hire women into these roles is because women in general seem less predisposed to do these things. As such, he makes the case that improving organisational diversity could be achieved by changing the culture and requirements of those who do programming (in order to make it more appealing for a larger proportion of women), rather than arbitrarily hiring inferior programmers just to pick up the numbers of women. Which is such a logically sound conclusion I'm struggling to see why this has even become a controversy. My partner started off as a 3D graphics animator and was a far, far better animator than most of the male contingent in her class. She got a job and tried to make it work, but wasn't prepared to sacrifice huge portions of her life to long hours and stressful working conditions. She left and pursued other forms of graphic design. The company didn't force her out, it wasn't hostile to her as a woman, she just wasn't prepared to do what many of the men were in order to work in that environment. This is obviously anecdotal, but it does actually seem as though this experience is mapped across multiple environments. As such, we're better off asking not why women won't take these roles, but why some men will. 12 minutes ago, ewerk said: When did you first realise that you hate women? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 17 minutes ago, Rayvin said: I've just re-skim read the whole thing looking for the section where he claims that. I can't find it. Can you please cite it specifically as this may be the thing I've missed in all of this. As far as I can see, nowhere does he make the case that women are inferior programmers. He makes the case that people who don't prioritise things that programmers need to do make for poor programmers, and that the reason Google struggles to hire women into these roles is because women in general seem less predisposed to do these things. As such, he makes the case that improving organisational diversity could be achieved by changing the culture and requirements of those who do programming (in order to make it more appealing for a larger proportion of women), rather than arbitrarily hiring inferior programmers just to pick up the numbers of women. Which is such a logically sound conclusion I'm struggling to see why this has even become a controversy. My partner started off as a 3D graphics animator and was a far, far better animator than most of the male contingent in her class. She got a job and tried to make it work, but wasn't prepared to sacrifice huge portions of her life to long hours and stressful working conditions. She left and pursued other forms of graphic design. The company didn't force her out, it wasn't hostile to her as a woman, she just wasn't prepared to do what many of the men were in order to work in that environment. This is obviously anecdotal, but it does actually seem as though this experience is mapped across multiple environments. As such, we're better off asking not why women won't take these roles, but why some men will. Pages 4-5 It is indeed noted by studies that there are not enough women in tech https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/where-are-the-women-in-computing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2017/07/10/how-women-in-tech-gain-visibility-to-get-ahead/#777195364951 . Also look at the inherent sexism in tech companies http://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-sexism-lawsuit-harassment-uber https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ . Men whining that trying to encourage women into tech is strangling their masculinity is not helping and that's what this does. If you have any thoughts that Damore is not a right wing troll look at who he is talking to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3205 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Rayvin said: I read the memo, yes. The guy has been backed up in his conclusions by academics in the field and more importantly his view to my eye was more that these differences exist, and we should cater for diversity by improving organisational culture to be more support of traits typically found in women, and that doing so would allow the fostering of a more genuine form of diversity. There is nothing wrong with making a statement like this. Whether biological or through socialization, he is right about general character trait differences between genders and goes to some lengths to explain that these are general traits rather than inevitable ones. So his argument is that we can either set quotas to arbitrarily hire women into roles they aren't necessarily well suited for, which clearly isn't working very well given the class action lawsuit Google is facing over a related issue, or you can change the culture and the way the workplace values the contributions of women. Google apparently allows it's employees to send out reports like this as part of an exchange of ideas. It looks strange to me but if they allow others to do it then there's a precedent. The guy isn't a sexist on any metric that makes sense. He's not having a dig at women, and he supports his arguments with scientific studies. It's developed into a shitstorm because the science flies in the face of what the ideologues are saying. The really sad thing here is that the right is going to use this as a stick to beat the left with for fucking years. This sort of nonsense makes us look like we're scared of debate and deniers of science. As for the YouTube video, I haven't actually watched it. There's plenty of non-alt right support for him though. California is an at will state i.e. there are absolutely no wrongful dismissal laws at all. They can sack you for any reason they wish at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: Pages 4-5 It is indeed noted by studies that there are not enough women in tech https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/04/where-are-the-women-in-computing/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniemarcus/2017/07/10/how-women-in-tech-gain-visibility-to-get-ahead/#777195364951 . Also look at the inherent sexism in tech companies http://www.wired.co.uk/article/tesla-sexism-lawsuit-harassment-uber https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/ . Men whining that trying to encourage women into tech is strangling their masculinity is not helping and that's what this does. If you have any thoughts that Damore is not a right wing troll look at who he is talking to. Pages 4-5 don't seem to say anything of the sort. They make the case for "Possible" non-gender bias reasons behind difficulties in HIRING women. Not, as far as I can see, any statement about women being inferior programmers. In fact, he barely mentions programming, his reasons for why the industry is impenetrable for women seem to be more general workplace issues. As for who he talked to, Molyneux was an odd choice (and I have some wary skepticism there), but Peterson is quite possibly the sanest man alive. He's so much more intelligent than these half baked SJW journalists that it's not even funny. Which is why literally none of them have taken him on. I've listened to loads of Peterson's lectures (remember, he's a tenured psychology Professor at a leading university who has taken on the Canadian justice system and last I checked had them on the ropes) and if that's where Damore got his stuff, then I don't think it discredits it. I know the Guardian has just put up an article claiming he's some kind of ring wing icon (and he is), but that's not by design. He puts forward his views and people agree with them. It doesn't make him wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said: California is an at will state i.e. there are absolutely no wrongful dismissal laws at all. They can sack you for any reason they wish at any time. Yes I read that article as well - however, I also read the bit that suggests that he might actually be able to sue them anyway because it is not legal to sack an employee after he's raised a grievance about unequal working conditions, which is what he did. He'd get it into court, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) Molyneux was just the first one to get an interview that's all. Edited August 10, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Park Life said: Molyneux was just the first one to get an interview that's all. Yeah but to be fair, I wouldn't give an interview to him on principle. I mean, I wouldn't give an interview to the Guardian after this clusterfuck either, but Molyneux is definitely on the murky end of things. Peterson is another story altogether. I would fucking love for the Guardian to go after him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 (edited) I've got no problem with women as long as they are pretty with nice tits and don't talk too much...Or lick their spoons after stirring coffee because that sends me into a wild rage. Edited August 10, 2017 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4964 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Of course now we're going to get an article in the Guardian about how right wing youtube personalities are corrupting young white men. Keywords for this article will be 'white privilege', 'patriarchy' and 'toxic masculinity'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 'Cis-bigot'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now