hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 960 of 1009 FirstFirst ... 460860910950957958959960961962963970 ... LastLast
Results 19,181 to 19,200 of 20164

Thread: Political Shots Fired Thread

  1. #19181
    Frug's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    13,865
    Again I go to work and come back and there are 3 pages that I haven't gone through yet but a cursory skimming surprises me that there isn't any yelling and frothing at the mouth.

    Props to Root. Also, Timaios, a response to Damore's letter isn't really what I was asking for (and all that clickbaity titled Wired article is is a rebuttal cloaked in a justification for firing). If people are going to call it an "anti-diversity screed" and rant about how horrible a person he is, and justify firing him for it, it has to be more than a few debatable points about the state of psychology. If it's that bad you ought to be able to point to a specific thing and say "there, that thing is bad". People fail utterly when I ask them to do that. I can probably start picking apart that Wired article too, but if you're just going to say "go read that" then I'm not going to write an essay responding to it for you. Actually, heck, the first point isn't backed up by anything. It's simply a claim with no support. Implicit bias exists and its to blame for underrepresentation of women. QED. What? Where is the evidence? I assure you there's counter evidence (Root gives some that anyone who has paid any attention to this debate ought to know by now) and they address none of it. It reads like an ideological position, not an argument.

    The best "there, that part of the letter is bad" that I have seen is his use of the term "neuroticism" to describe the psychological dimension women score higher on, at which point I had to inform the person that that is a technical term and it's well established that yes, they do score higher in it. That seems to be the base level people are reacting to with this and it's pretty sad.

    It's pretty telling for me that I a) like women, b) generally have more female friends than male ones, c) want to work more with women and am glad to see them in comp sci working with me (and above me, my last two bosses have been female) and I don't see any justifiable reason to react to that letter with anger.
    Last edited by Frug; January 11 2018 at 01:15:26 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire
    I'm too stupid to say anything that deserves being in your magnificent signature.

  2. #19182
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    I think the anger is because the letter is a rallying cry for bigots and morons who will exploit any opportunity to acquire a platform with which to oppress women.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  3. #19183
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    Ancaps are cute.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  4. #19184

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    6,268
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Again I go to work and come back and there are 3 pages that I haven't gone through yet but a cursory skimming surprises me that there isn't any yelling and frothing at the mouth.

    Props to Root. Also, Timaios, a response to Damore's letter isn't really what I was asking for (and all that clickbaity titled Wired article is is a rebuttal cloaked in a justification for firing). If people are going to call it an "anti-diversity screed" and rant about how horrible a person he is, and justify firing him for it, it has to be more than a few debatable points about the state of psychology. If it's that bad you ought to be able to point to a specific thing and say "there, that thing is bad". People fail utterly when I ask them to do that. I can probably start picking apart that Wired article too, but if you're just going to say "go read that" then I'm not going to write an essay responding to it for you. Actually, heck, the first point isn't backed up by anything. It's simply a claim with no support. Implicit bias exists and its to blame for underrepresentation of women. QED. What? Where is the evidence? I assure you there's counter evidence (Root gives some that anyone who has paid any attention to this debate ought to know by now) and they address none of it. It reads like an ideological position, not an argument.

    The best "there, that part of the letter is bad" that I have seen is his use of the term "neuroticism" to describe the psychological dimension women score higher on, at which point I had to inform the person that that is a technical term and it's well established that yes, they do score higher in it. That seems to be the base level people are reacting to with this and it's pretty sad.

    It's pretty telling for me that I a) like women, b) generally have more female friends than male ones, c) want to work more with women and am glad to see them in comp sci working with me (and above me, my last two bosses have been female) and I don't see any justifiable reason to react to that letter with anger.
    so when did you go full redpill
    Last edited by elmicker; January 11 2018 at 10:34:05 AM.

  5. #19185
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,107
    And there I was trying to figure out which countryball has the yellow and black flag :/
    I was somewhere around Old Man Star, on the edge of Essence, when drugs began to take hold.

  6. #19186

    Join Date
    November 5, 2011
    Posts
    10,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Again I go to work and come back and there are 3 pages that I haven't gone through yet but a cursory skimming surprises me that there isn't any yelling and frothing at the mouth.

    Props to Root. Also, Timaios, a response to Damore's letter isn't really what I was asking for (and all that clickbaity titled Wired article is is a rebuttal cloaked in a justification for firing). If people are going to call it an "anti-diversity screed" and rant about how horrible a person he is, and justify firing him for it, it has to be more than a few debatable points about the state of psychology. If it's that bad you ought to be able to point to a specific thing and say "there, that thing is bad". People fail utterly when I ask them to do that. I can probably start picking apart that Wired article too, but if you're just going to say "go read that" then I'm not going to write an essay responding to it for you. Actually, heck, the first point isn't backed up by anything. It's simply a claim with no support. Implicit bias exists and its to blame for underrepresentation of women. QED. What? Where is the evidence? I assure you there's counter evidence (Root gives some that anyone who has paid any attention to this debate ought to know by now) and they address none of it. It reads like an ideological position, not an argument.

    The best "there, that part of the letter is bad" that I have seen is his use of the term "neuroticism" to describe the psychological dimension women score higher on, at which point I had to inform the person that that is a technical term and it's well established that yes, they do score higher in it. That seems to be the base level people are reacting to with this and it's pretty sad.

    It's pretty telling for me that I a) like women, b) generally have more female friends than male ones, c) want to work more with women and am glad to see them in comp sci working with me (and above me, my last two bosses have been female) and I don't see any justifiable reason to react to that letter with anger.
    The end intentionally or not reads like "I am totally not racist I have a black friend!" so good job there.

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  7. #19187
    vDJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Location
    �� out there
    Posts
    1,354
    It is, indeed, pretty telling. Nice one.

  8. #19188
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    And there I was trying to figure out which countryball has the yellow and black flag :/
    here, let me help you for future reference.

    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  9. #19189
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    Flags are a spook though
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  10. #19190

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,835
    Queer anarchism missing a clear opportunity for a chocolate starfish.

    I am disappointed.

  11. #19191
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Queer anarchism missing a clear opportunity for a chocolate starfish.

    I am disappointed.
    >bumming is for queers

    I'm not surprised you're disappointed
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  12. #19192
    pesadelo's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    And there I was trying to figure out which countryball has the yellow and black flag :/
    here, let me help you for future reference.

    Actually after hearing his side of the story on JRE (I know right ) , his position is a bit to the right but the fallout from the left and the progrom he suffered and that goggle only fired him months after the memo , I think that Americans are going mad.



    Enviado do meu SM-G900F através do Tapatalk

  13. #19193

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    4,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Queer anarchism missing a clear opportunity for a chocolate starfish.

    I am disappointed.
    >bumming is for queers

    I'm not surprised you're disappointed
    I know right?

    I wanted a symbol I could really get behind.

  14. #19194
    Timaios's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by Frug View Post
    Again I go to work and come back and there are 3 pages that I haven't gone through yet but a cursory skimming surprises me that there isn't any yelling and frothing at the mouth.

    Props to Root. Also, Timaios, a response to Damore's letter isn't really what I was asking for (and all that clickbaity titled Wired article is is a rebuttal cloaked in a justification for firing). If people are going to call it an "anti-diversity screed" and rant about how horrible a person he is, and justify firing him for it, it has to be more than a few debatable points about the state of psychology. If it's that bad you ought to be able to point to a specific thing and say "there, that thing is bad". People fail utterly when I ask them to do that. I can probably start picking apart that Wired article too, but if you're just going to say "go read that" then I'm not going to write an essay responding to it for you. Actually, heck, the first point isn't backed up by anything. It's simply a claim with no support. Implicit bias exists and its to blame for underrepresentation of women. QED. What? Where is the evidence? I assure you there's counter evidence (Root gives some that anyone who has paid any attention to this debate ought to know by now) and they address none of it. It reads like an ideological position, not an argument.

    The best "there, that part of the letter is bad" that I have seen is his use of the term "neuroticism" to describe the psychological dimension women score higher on, at which point I had to inform the person that that is a technical term and it's well established that yes, they do score higher in it. That seems to be the base level people are reacting to with this and it's pretty sad.

    It's pretty telling for me that I a) like women, b) generally have more female friends than male ones, c) want to work more with women and am glad to see them in comp sci working with me (and above me, my last two bosses have been female) and I don't see any justifiable reason to react to that letter with anger.
    Oh, I thought you first asked what's wrong with it. I did reply to that a few pages ago, but in short

    1) you can't use findings that posit differences between genders on average to argue for something in the IT industry as the IT industry employees are not a sample of the normal population.
    2) you need a criterion for good performance in the IT business, he gives none but argues nevertheless that some female attributes make them poorer in this respect (see also above why this reasoning does not work).
    3) he circularly argues for the need to address people as individuals but at the same time requests special treatment for his group (conservative males).

    He is also very selective in quoting his sources and omits things like right wing attitudes being associated with low verbal IQ. (again, this type of reasoning is really bad, don't do it.) He also, due to not being a scientist, builds his arguments on basis of gender differences but does not report or understand effect sizes and that the differences are quite small.

    It's just bad. But to your last question, is bad reasoning reason to react with anger? Depends perhaps on his motivations. If he was attempting to scientifically validate a misogynistic worldview, sure. But none of us know, really. I assume there was a proper reason for sacking him, I suppose the court will eventually decide.

    Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît point. - Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 277

  15. #19195
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    3,835
    Frug... what?

  16. #19196
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    And there I was trying to figure out which countryball has the yellow and black flag :/
    here, let me help you for future reference.

    5/10 lacks anarcho-monarchism

  17. #19197
    Movember 2012 Elriche Oshego's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 21, 2011
    Posts
    7,194
    Quote Originally Posted by Keckers View Post
    Flags are a spook though

  18. #19198
    Liare's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    12,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Liare View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lief Siddhe View Post
    And there I was trying to figure out which countryball has the yellow and black flag :/
    here, let me help you for future reference.

    5/10 lacks anarcho-monarchism
    yea, we purged those to make room for queer anarchism, you see how they got the pink now?
    Viking, n.:
    1. Daring Scandinavian seafarers, explorers, adventurers, entrepreneurs world-famous for their aggressive, nautical import business, highly leveraged takeovers and blue eyes.
    2. Bloodthirsty sea pirates who ravaged northern Europe beginning in the 9th century.

    Hagar's note: The first definition is much preferred; the second is used only by malcontents, the envious, and disgruntled owners of waterfront property.

  19. #19199
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    16,258
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Elriche Oshego again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  20. #19200
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,394
    Quote Originally Posted by Timaios View Post
    2) you need a criterion for good performance in the IT business, he gives none but argues nevertheless that some female attributes make them poorer in this respect (see also above why this reasoning does not work).
    It's also pretty clear that Mr. Damone doesn't understand the first fucking thing about being professional and working nicely with other professionals, so there is that.
    meh

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •