Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Father Jack]

When it happens you will excuse it as speech that was necessarily restricted in order to avoid offending people.

If it happens we can certainly revisit it. And if it doesn't, what then?

 

[The Passenger]

James Damore being the most significant case

LOL. Someone is moved on after telling about a quarter of his workplace they are unworthy of their positions. I'm shocked to be sitting here.

 

[its free real estate]

If it happens we can certainly revisit it. And if it doesn't, what then?

What do you think about saying "women don't have penises" being considered hate speech in the UK? For it or against it?

 

[its free real estate]

LOL. Someone is moved on after telling about a quarter of his workplace they are unworthy of their positions. I'm shocked to be sitting here.

That was never what he said. He said the reason why there were fewer women in computer science and engineering were due to factors that cannot be resolved by inclusivity training, and that said training was a waste of time.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Qantas would do well to stop spending time, money and resources on s**t like this and focus more on the fuel costs which are driving their profit down.
It's an alloy tube doing 800kmh with the sole purpose of delivering people from point A to point B.
An 'inclusive atmosphere". geezus christ, what next?

 

[Father Jack]

Qantas would do well to stop spending time, money and resources on s**t like this and focus more on the fuel costs which are driving their profit down.
It's an alloy tube doing 800kmh with the sole purpose of delivering people from point A to point B.
An 'inclusive atmosphere". geezus christ, what next?

I assume they know more about their business than you do, so I further assume that they have decided that spending time, money and resources on s**t like that actually improves their business. That's bloody capitalism for you.

 

[its free real estate]

I assume they know more about their business than you do, so I further assume that they have decided that spending time, money and resources on s**t like that actually improves their business. That's bloody capitalism for you.

It gives HR a means of arse covering, and becomes a way for them to bully employees within a politically acceptable framework, nothing more. If you agree with that, that's fine. But stand up and say it, don't cower behind "what's wrong with saying 'parent'".

 

[Father Jack]

It gives HR a means of arse covering, and becomes a way for them to bully employees within a politically acceptable framework, nothing more. If you agree with that, that's fine. But stand up and say it, don't cower behind "what's wrong with saying 'parent'".

That's your way of viewing it, I don't happen to necessarily agree. I tend to think it's a positive thing attempt to be more inclusive, especially when it involves such a minor thing that you'd not even notice if it wasn't pointed out to you. "where's your parent"? "where's your mum"? You'd not bat an eyelid if the first was used, would you?

 

[The Passenger]

That was never what he said. He said the reason why there were fewer women in computer science and engineering were due to factors that cannot be resolved by inclusivity training, and that said training was a waste of time.

It was a thinly veiled attempt to belittle the women in his workplace. Even if his own girlfriend wouldn't support his posit.

Yonatan Zunger nailed it all in his response.

 

[its free real estate]

It was a thinly veiled attempt to belittle the women in his workplace. Even if his own girlfriend wouldn't support his posit.

So nothing to support your initial claim. Cool.

Yonatan Zunger nailed it all in his response.

This Yonatan Zunger?

Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.​

Forgive me if I don't think the guy who wrote the above (and piloted Google+) has much of merit to say.

 

[Craven Morehead]

I assume they know more about their business than you do, so I further assume that they have decided that spending time, money and resources on s**t like that actually improves their business. That's bloody capitalism for you.

Oh yeah, when I fly interstate, or overseas, (which is reasonably frequent), I always look for the carrier with the 'most inclusive atmosphere".

 

[The Passenger]

So nothing to support your initial claim. Cool.

Do you think he was espousing the virtues of the females in his workplace?

Forgive me if I don't think the guy who wrote the above (and piloted Google+) has much of merit to say.

Didn't know - nor really care - he was on the Google+ engineering team. User base of 111 million in the end. Pretty good effort when coming up against the established Facebook juggernaut.

 

[its free real estate]

That's your way of viewing it, I don't happen to necessarily agree. I tend to think it's a positive thing attempt to be more inclusive, especially when it involves such a minor thing that you'd not even notice if it wasn't pointed out to you. "where's your parent"? "where's your mum"? You'd not bat an eyelid if the first was used, would you?

Don't think asking "parent" over "mum" is going to be very effective way of communicating to a preschooler.

 

[its free real estate]

Do you think he was espousing the virtues of the females in his workplace?

I think it was agnostic on the issue. It did come out against diversity and inclusion training though, the grift that never ends.

Didn't know - nor really care - he was on the Google+ engineering team. User base of 111 million in the end. Pretty good effort when coming up against the established Facebook juggernaut.

Considering they forcefully converted new Google users to it, not really that good.

 

[Father Jack]

Oh yeah, when I fly interstate, or overseas, (which is reasonably frequent), I always look for the carrier with the 'most inclusive atmosphere".

I'm guessing you'd be less sarcastic if you were part of a group that regularly found itself on the outer in everyday life.

 

[Father Jack]

Don't think asking "parent" over "mum" is going to be very effective way of communicating to a preschooler.

Which brings me back to my point that it is unlikely to be a hard and fast rule.

 

[its free real estate]

Which brings me back to my point that it is unlikely to be a hard and fast rule.

So in which context should a person know when to use the correct language and not risk falling afoul, at potential great cost to them?

 

[The Passenger]

I think it was agnostic on the issue.

I'm sure every woman loves sitting down at their desk in the morning and reading these sort of things from a co-worker.

Awesome team environment that will create

-----

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

 

[its free real estate]

I'm sure every woman loves sitting down at their desk in the morning and reading these sort of things from a co-worker.

Awesome team environment that will create

-----

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.

Is the above wrong?

Google is the company that secretly puts microphones in their products, so we better be sure their treatment of political speech doesn't stray into censoring factual but unpopular statements.

 

[The Passenger]

Is the above wrong?

A lot of it is debatable.

But in actuality the correctness of his statements are irrelevant.

When you sit down at your place of work in the morning you don't expect to be sent a memo which questions whether you were hired for the job based on your skills or to fulfil diversity criteria. This is what happened to approximately a quarter of Google employee's.

When a quarter of your workforce is feeling somewhat alienated due to the actions of one employee, then what is the likely course of action that is going to happen?

Lets use a hypothetical... You might work with some bloke that is an absolute s**t campaigner. But if you send an email around to the whole workplace calling aforementioned s**t campaigner, a s**t campaigner.... You will be the one that gets fired, even though your email was 100% factual and everyone know's it was 100% factual.

Google is the company that secretly puts microphones in their products, so we better be sure their treatment of political speech doesn't stray into censoring factual but unpopular statements.

Google's product ethics - which are, I agree, very questionable - aren't related to their hiring/firing ethics. These are separate issues which should be handled as such.

 

[its free real estate]

A lot of it is debatable.

But in actuality the correctness of his statements are irrelevant.

When you sit down at your place of work in the morning you don't expect to be sent a memo which questions whether you were hired for the job based on your skills or to fulfil diversity criteria. This is what happened to approximately a quarter of Google employee's.

When a quarter of your workforce is feeling somewhat alienated due to the actions of one employee, then what is the likely course of action that is going to happen?

Lets use a hypothetical... You might work with some bloke that is an absolute s**t campaigner. But if you send an email around to the whole workplace calling aforementioned s**t campaigner, a s**t campaigner.... You will be the one that gets fired, even though your email was 100% factual and everyone know's it was 100% factual.

Smearing an individual is different. The analogy doesn't hold.

But related to what you are saying - that means anything perceived as offensive, once it reaches a threshold, is grounds for dismissal. Meaning in the Qantas example, the inclusive language training sets a path for someone being sacked for speaking out of turn.

If someone sends a memo to a small discussion group at Qantas saying "I am not saying parent instead of mum, this is ridiculous ...", and it gets circulated and someone finds offence at Qantas, does that necessitate grounds for dismissal?

Google's product ethics - which are, I agree, very questionable - aren't related to their hiring/firing ethics. These are separate issues which should be handled as such.

How are they not? They are both bred from the same culture.

 

[The Passenger]

If someone sends a memo to a small discussion group at Qantas saying "I am not saying parent instead of mum, this is ridiculous ...", and it gets circulated and someone finds offence at Qantas, does that necessitate grounds for dismissal?

1) James' memo was sent to an internal mailing list, not a "small discussion group".
2) Would your above hypothetical have made a quarter of Qantas staff feel question whether they were worthy of their employment? I would not think so.
3) I don't know your hypothetical is grounds for dismissal. Sacking someone is a case by case basis. On face value it wouldn't appear to be. Anyone fired is entitled to take legal action, which James did and subsequently moved out of court.

 

[Chief]

Google's product ethics - which are, I agree, very questionable - aren't related to their hiring/firing ethics. These are separate issues which should be handled as such.

Of all the s**t that Google pulls, this guy chooses "too many women" as the problem he is going to tackle.

These incels need to learn to engage in quiet introspection.

 

[its free real estate]

1) James' memo was sent to an internal mailing list, not a "small discussion group".
2) Would your above hypothetical have made a quarter of Qantas staff feel question whether they were worthy of their employment? I would not think so.
3) I don't know your hypothetical is grounds for dismissal. Sacking someone is a case by case basis. On face value it wouldn't appear to be. Anyone fired is entitled to take legal action, which James did and subsequently moved out of court.

I don’t see the distinction between a small discussion and mailing list. They’re both subsets of the whole. The memo was written in discussion of the efficacy of diversity and inclusion training. Has that been settled?

If inefficacious programs can’t be questioned because the facts of the matter are offensive, then where is the limit? If you say the implicit racial bias is nonsense, and won’t resolve hiring issues, do you get sacked for offending the X% of non-white workers, even though the implicit bias science has been debunked?

It is strange that people who imagine themselves rational say we should go along with falsehoods in the interests of getting along.

 

[The Passenger]

It is strange that people who imagine themselves rational say we should go along with falsehoods in the interests of getting along.

There are methods of raising things. I'm not sure of the number of people who were directly sent this memo, but we can be confident it wasn't a "small discussion group". This wasn't a way of raising things.

And yes, unfortunately sometimes you've gotta hold your tongue to just "get along", especially in your place of employment where most people - believe it or not - don't turn on their computer of a morning expecting a debate about the neuroticism of women. That's what being part of a team is about. After slagging off nearly everyone in Rugby League, Anthony Mundine learned this the hard way and went off to boxing where his "individualness" could become a financial asset instead of organisational liability.