"CB" (jrcb)
08/08/2017 at 14:25 • Filed to: None
3
17|
"CB" (jrcb)
08/08/2017 at 14:25 • Filed to: None | 3
| 17 |
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Overall, not a bad read. Considering that government eugenics projects existed for a longass time in Canada, it’s important to understand what’s real science and what’s bullshit, because bad science becomes bad policy, which is pretty quick at ruining lives. For those who have read it, what are your thoughts?
random001
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:31 |
|
See, this is how one shares an article on Oppo.
There are obviously biological differences between men, women, and different races. Anyone who disagrees, just google porn, you’ll see.
Some people claim that biological differences go so far as to pre-dispose people to be good or bad at different skills. There are times this is true, e.g. Michael Phelps and his weird biology that makes him a great swimmer, but it’s highly unlikely that there are biological differences across a specific category, male, female, or any race, that determines if someone can write programs or be a scientist. A lot of arguments point more to nurture than nature on this one.
Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:35 |
|
|
CB
> Jake - Has Bad Luck So You Don't Have To
08/08/2017 at 14:36 |
|
Interesting. His citations are... lacklustre, to say the least.
Spridget
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:37 |
|
“Men are better than women.”
“Oh yeah, why?”
“Uhhhmmmn . . . because the science.”
If you’re going to make a sexist argument, at least make one that doesn’t seem like you’re making it up as you go along.
unclevanos (Ovaltine Jenkins)
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:43 |
|
My thought is that the ecoboost is meh.
|
CB
> unclevanos (Ovaltine Jenkins)
08/08/2017 at 14:45 |
|
Depends on the implementation. The Ecoboost Mustang and in the RS are both pretty sweet.
|
CB
> Spridget
08/08/2017 at 14:45 |
|
You think an engineer would be better at that kind of thing.
|
unclevanos (Ovaltine Jenkins)
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:47 |
|
The whole FP circlejerk about them is what annoys me.
|
CB
> unclevanos (Ovaltine Jenkins)
08/08/2017 at 14:48 |
|
I understand. The hype around something makes you annoyed with it. I feel the same way about Game of Thrones.
|
unclevanos (Ovaltine Jenkins)
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:50 |
|
Same about game of thrones.
CaptDale - is secretly British
> CB
08/08/2017 at 14:53 |
|
I agree it isn’t intrinsically a bad read, but the way it is being shared it not ok here and many of us can’t comment on the direct arrival and honestly i don’t want to interact with the people that are in the comments on the direct article.
I don’t really have a thought to share on the article. I read it. I agree that biologically men and women are different, but so are the male and female of every species. They adapt for their different roles. Though since we no longer rely as heavily on our direct adaptations from evolution, the statement that a man is better than a women is horrible and sexist. But why isn’t it the same way around when women are better at something than men? Could it be men care less or that people want to stir the pot? I don’t know, but honestly I think both sexes need to just care less about what the other thinks and just try and be good people.
I guess I did have a thought on it.
Jayhawk Jake
> CB
08/08/2017 at 15:03 |
|
I think the title of that article is a bit overly inflammatory in the sense that it’s broadly generalized. A title that might reflect the contents of the article better would perhaps be “Damore is just another in a long line of misled people trying to justify discrimination with bad science”. It’s not as attention grabbing though, and it’s not a good headline.
The article itself is pretty good, but it opens by immediately implying that ALL men have ALWAYS discriminated against ALL women in various ways. It creates this “he vs she” attitude that accomplishes...what, exactly?
Why can’t this article be more up front about what it’s actually talking about rather than trying to stir up some hatred and anger from both sides of what shouldn’t even be a debate, at least not per the contents of the article.
bhtooefr
> CB
08/08/2017 at 15:24 |
|
So, I’d say that the manifesto in general is really misguided (the goal being to, ultimately, attack diversity programs at Google, using pseudoscience to justify its argument)... but I’d also argue that it’s pseudoscientific to deny that there’s biological differences between men and women. Basically, they’re there, they may make some things harder for men (on statistical average), some things harder for women (on statistical average). In fact, denying biological differences between men and women denies research indicating that there’s some correlation between brain structures on gender (and I do mean gender, not sex) lines - transgender women before hormonal therapy, for instance, apparently tend to have some brain structures in common with cisgender women. (IIRC the correlation is less true for transgender and cisgender men, though?) If you’ve got differences in brain structures, of course you’ll have differences in how people think.
However, the author of the manifesto has a massive blind spot about the discrimination that women and racial minorities experience in the workplace, and attacks programs meant to prevent that discrimination with an unhealthy dollop of “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!?!?!?” - effectively trying to claim that a smaller share of women in the tech workplace is the natural state of being, when it’s not necessarily, and claiming that trying to increase that share is necessarily discrimination against men.
And, regarding political viewpoints... does Google really want the American “conservative” in their workplace? Because there’s a difference between actual conservatism (which, while I’m a left radical in some ways, I can respect), and the populist right radicalism that’s on display from American “conservatives”.
DipodomysDeserti
> Jayhawk Jake
08/08/2017 at 15:29 |
|
There’s a history of men trying to subjugate women within scientific fields. It matters that the dude, is a dude. If this fact brothers you, then I encourage you to do something about it.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> DipodomysDeserti
08/08/2017 at 15:35 |
|
It does matter that the dude is a dude. But he doesn’t represent all dudes. I have no issue with the contents of the article. It’s a good article. The headline doesn’t match the contents, though, so they get missed.
|
Jayhawk Jake
> CB
08/08/2017 at 15:39 |
|
Engineers don’t deal in abstractions. It’s cause and effect alone, ignore logic and reason.
I deal with FAA regulations every day. I see first hand that nothing is logical, rational, or reasonable in engineering
|
CB
> Jayhawk Jake
08/08/2017 at 15:41 |
|
Fair point.