Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Mofra]

Except it wasn't a public statement. It was an internal discussion.

Get the facts right and come back to me.

"circulated a manifesto" doesn't scream internal discussion for me if there is no control of a document.

“it went viral because 99% of people wanted to comment about how unsupported/wrong/hurtful the doc was”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...rsity-row-considers-legal-action-james-damore

Google’s vice president of diversity, integrity and governance, Danielle Brown, said Google was right to take a stand on building an open inclusive environment, but recognised “strong stands elicit strong reactions”.

She said part of being open was “fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions”. But she said that needed to work alongside principles of equal employment and anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

No he wasn't.

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership"

You advance theories of biological determinism and then pretend you aren't allowed.

 

[King Brown]

"circulated a manifesto" doesn't scream internal discussion for me if there is no control of a document.

“it went viral because 99% of people wanted to comment about how unsupported/wrong/hurtful the doc was”.

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...rsity-row-considers-legal-action-james-damore

Calling it a manifesto when it wasn't termed that itself by the author is part of the establishing 'correctness'.

Cordelia Fine, who wrote Testosterone Rex and won the Royal Society Prize for it, said the following about the memo:

Despite authoring two acclaimed books on gender, Fine, a leading feminist science writer, feels “torn in many different directions” by Damore. She believes his memo made many dubious assumptions and ignored vast swaths of research that show pervasive discrimination against women. But his summary of the differences between the sexes, she says, was “more accurate and nuanced than what you sometimes find in the popular literature”.

Some of Damore’s ideas, she adds, are “very familiar to me as part of my day-to-day research, and are not seen as especially controversial. So there was something quite extraordinary about someone losing their job for putting forward a view that is part of the scientific debate. And then to be so publicly shamed as well. I felt pretty sorry for him.”
​

Only the politically correct see this as something worth dismissal and public shame over, not anyone versed in the science.

 

[King Brown]

Let's imagine someone working at Hancock Prospecting circulates a memo about the need to urgently address climate change, which contains sources, caveats about mitigation strategies, why the company shouldn't keep investing in coal but perhaps concentrate on other commodities etc.

They get sacked. How do you boys feel about that?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Setting aside whether he should have been fired or not.

Did you not read her entire quote? She was more positive when comparing it wheatever she means by popular literature.

Only the politically correct see this as something worth dismissal and public shame over, not anyone versed in the science.

She believes his memo made many dubious assumptions and ignored vast swaths of research that show pervasive discrimination against women. But his summary of the differences between the sexes, she says, was “more accurate and nuanced than what you sometimes find in the popular literature”.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Let's imagine someone working at Hancock Prospecting circulates a memo about the need to urgently address climate change, which contains sources, caveats about mitigation strategies, why the company shouldn't keep investing in coal but perhaps concentrate on other commodities etc.

They get sacked. How do you boys feel about that?

Stupid example.

One is based on scientific proof, the other is rooted in 4chan bigotry.

 

[Mofra]

Let's imagine someone working at Hancock Prospecting circulates a memo about the need to urgently address climate change, which contains sources, caveats about mitigation strategies, why the company shouldn't keep investing in coal but perhaps concentrate on other commodities etc.

They get sacked. How do you boys feel about that?

Does the company have a "climate change denial" clause in their employment contract? It would depend on the employment contract.
You seem upset about diversity clauses in large public companies but that is something that most employers have.

PS - You do realize Hancock Prospecting is not a coal miner, right?

 

[RupieDupie]

Except it wasn't a public statement. It was an internal discussion.

Get the facts right and come back to me.

Perhaps he shot himself in the foot relative to his occupation, imagine some of the stuff this guy would have had to have claimed on his CV, as well as responses to Selection Criteria, to be an engineer at Google?

Selection Criteria
1) Have a critical mind
2) Have access to the Internet
(perhaps 3) An understanding of equity and diversity in the workplace...)

Now sure if someone at Walmart circulated a memo that said, "Wimmen should clean up the benches after work, like my mom does after she has gone did the dishes", then yeah, maybe a few people could take Cletus aside and say,

HR - "Cletus, you have lived quite an insular life, and therefore carry a few unconscious biases, did you know women can actually drive cars nowadays?"
Cletus - "But that's not what my daddy says! I've never seen that in the cartoons!"
HR - "Cartoons are just pictures that people draw"
Cletus - "Lord what kind of a country I live in when people are saying dem cartoons are just piktures, what? I supposed to believe someone just sitting behind the TV drawing dem piktures while I watching?"
HR - "Ah Cletus, we've got a long way to go here"

 

[King Brown]

Setting aside whether he should have been fired or not.

Did you not read her entire quote? She was more positive when comparing it wheatever she means by popular literature.



She believes his memo made many dubious assumptions and ignored vast swaths of research that show pervasive discrimination against women. But his summary of the differences between the sexes, she says, was “more accurate and nuanced than what you sometimes find in the popular literature”.

I read the entire quote, that's why I posted it.

Nowhere does she say he was wrong, in fact, she says "there was something quite extraordinary about someone losing their job for putting forward a view that is part of the scientific debate". Nowhere is what he said asserted by Fine to be incorrect or objectionable to the debate.

 

[King Brown]

Does the company have a "climate change denial" clause in their employment contract? It would depend on the employment contract.
You seem upset about diversity clauses in large public companies but that is something that most employers have.

No company has specific clauses like climate change denial. Nor do they have clauses about discussion of sex differences. Clauses are sufficiently broad enough to make dismissal easy.

PS - You do realize Hancock Prospecting is not a coal miner, right?

They own a couple of projects in the Galilee basin through a JV.

 

[King Brown]

Stupid example.

One is based on scientific proof, the other is rooted in 4chan bigotry.

Each are scientifically valid, and each are politically contentious.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Each are scientifically valid, and each are politically contentious.

No. Equating the 2 is stupid.

There are no 2 legitimate sides to these ones.

 

[King Brown]

No. Equating the 2 is stupid.

There are no 2 legitimate sides to these ones.

You've got an expert in the field in Fine stating otherwise, but OK, Kidd Vicious knows better.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

You've got an expert in the field in Fine stating otherwise, but OK, Kidd Vicious knows better.

Did you read what she said?

FMD.

Im sure you scour the web for experts who agree with you about racial and sexual inferiority, there's got to be something better than what she said.

 

[Mofra]

No company has specific clauses like climate change denial. Nor do they have clauses about discussion of sex differences. Clauses are sufficiently broad enough to make dismissal easy.

Most do have pro-diversity statements and if those discussions are construed as being anti-diversity (such as flat-out asserting women are unsuitable for some roles within a company) than that would be a breach.
As it appears to be in this case. I think Google are doing ok as a business.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

And a couple of things about google, that hook back in.

The reaction to perceived political correctness is a cultural grievance by those who want their grievances seen as legitimate. Google rejects this and takes more liberal stands on social issues.

At their core, they are profit centric corporation that ises all manner of accounting tools to maximise profits.

To call them 'left' shows where this debate is.

 

[King Brown]

Did you read what she said?

FMD.

Im sure you scour the web for experts who agree with you about racial and sexual inferiority, there's got to be something better than what she said.

She is specifically in the counter case to the argument - ie she is an expert who disagrees with the idea there are distinct biological differences between the sexes. And yet she still did not find him objectionable.

 

[King Brown]

To call them 'left' shows where this debate is.

Never called them left. Political correctness is neither left nor right. It is more regularly enforced by the left, for various reasons, but not unique to it.

Most do have pro-diversity statements and if those discussions are construed as being anti-diversity (such as flat-out asserting women are unsuitable for some roles within a company) than that would be a breach.
As it appears to be in this case. I think Google are doing ok as a business.

Google has a diversity policy while employing 80% men. By their own standards they are worse than Damore.

Gina's also doing OK as a business. Doesn't make her correct.

And your interpretations of the memo are incorrect.

 

[Mofra]

Google has a diversity policy while employing 80% men. By their own standards they are worse than Damore.

Gina's also doing OK as a business. Doesn't make her correct.

And your interpretations of the memo are incorrect.

Google agrees with my interpretations of the memo - demonstrably so. I dare say they are far more aware of it's contents and implications than yourself.
I think this discussion has run it's course now though.
It's easy just to lump any chance conservatives are uncomfortable with as "political correctness" even when history validates such change.

 

[King Brown]

Google agrees with my interpretations of the memo - demonstrably so. I dare say they are far more aware of it's contents and implications than yourself.

This is self-justifying. It doesn't actually say whether your interpretations are correct.

You may as well have said you're on the side of God.

I think this discussion has run it's course now though.

Probably for the best, you keep making inaccurate statements.

 

[Mofra]

Probably for the best, you keep making inaccurate statements.

No, our opinions differ - and Google agrees with me. Go on though, get one last word in. Free hit, I won't reply.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Never called them left. Political correctness is neither left nor right. It is more regularly enforced by the left, for various reasons, but not unique to it.

How is it enforced?

And your interpretations of the memo are incorrect.

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership".

 

[King Brown]

No, our opinions differ

So it's a matter of opinion that the memo was released to the public, was a manifesto or that Hancock doesn't own coal properties in Queensland?

I love that you went "well, actually" on the last one. Woefully wrong.

 

[King Brown]

"I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership".

That isn't Mofra's interpretation.

 

[RupieDupie]

No, our opinions differ - and Google agrees with me. Go on though, get one last word in. Free hit, I won't reply.

An interesting argument is when you look at advertised jobs every now and then, some have specific "desired personal qualities" (but I bet you this will only be for the pleb workers), but the point is, does a Selection Criteria / Desired Personal Qualities become redundant when a person gets the job? If a person goes for a job and are aware that they are required to uphold these values, do they need to actually uphold these values?

But I believe there is another side to this argument, a much darker and more, Googlesque, argument, which comes with the translation of the desired personal qualities by the company executives...

The other part of this same argument, are the ambiguous statements such as"...uphold the Catholic ethos", which must be somehow related to the current Pope's interpretation of The Bible, and what if at Google, they included their motto "Don't be evil" as a desired characteristic, that is, Google also has a monopoly on what being "evil" constitutes, and apparently a bit of harmless tax evasion, raping and pillaging, is not being evil, so if an employee shits on another employee's head and then defiles that same employees cat, technically, by Google standards, this cannot be evil as it is something they do to whole countries on a regular basis, and therefore may cause some confusion, therefore, IMO it is important for a worker, in this context, to have some discretion, to consider the Nuremberg Trials...