David Thompson
Subscribe

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad

« Elsewhere (242) | Main | The Legends Were True »

August 08, 2017

Comments

David

[ Surveys wreckage. Brushes debris from hair. ]

So what do we do now?

Farnsworth M Muldoon

...or be like Bert...

Ian

I hadn't thought that far ahead. I suppose we could spend 100 more comments or so pitying those now abed who were not here on this glorious day, etc.

Sporkatus

So what do we do now?

Well, next thread, I suppose. Alexander, weeping, no worlds left to conquer, something of that sort.

Haven't had a 500 comment post, though.

Sporkatus

pitying those now abed who were not here on this glorious day, etc.

As in Henry V Part II: Crispin Day Nights.

See, it's funny because Henry IV has multiple parts and V doesn't, and Hollywood...

Pogonip

Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!

Spiny Norman

...pitying those now abed who were not here on this glorious day, etc.

From this day to the ending of the world... We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...

Band of... what? PATRIARCHY!

[ducks and covers]

Splotchy

I've only just caught up with Damore and gotten over my speechlessness.

I mean in America, 'the land of the free', where they have the first amendment, at a huge company whose main techskill is logistics, who encourage and enable digital natter amongst staff, someone has been fired for politely stating the obvious biology: that men and women are not the same.

In its schizoid way, Google do concede men and women are not the same. If they were, they wouldn't have diversity programs and affirmative action for women. What Google seem to want to do is deny the life-choices of those who have career preferences different to that which Google decrees, while castigating anyone who believes in basic biology/psychology.

I made my tiny protest by changing search engines to DuckDuckGo. Anyways, thanks all for injecting a little humour in the desperate state of freedom in the 21stC.

Jonathan

Of course if we'd all followed this advice we would not now be closing in on 300 comments.

The sad thing is, the guy posted his screed on an internal message board intended to allow people to air their views. Then some arsehole decided to leak it to the left-wing tech media.

Spiny Norman

Then some arsehole decided to leak it to the left-wing tech media.

From "xer" fainting couch, presumably.

Jeff Guinn
[David:] Except, of course, that’s not what the memo does. So, another liar. And that’s the very first sentence.

Conspicuously missing from any MSM reporting on this has been a single quote from what Damore wrote.

Not. A. Single. Damn. Word.

Instead, we get assertions and feelz.

Now, as to Dr. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein. She continued the proud tradition of accusations absent evidence. As a "scientist", you'd think she would start with facts, and go from there.

Like: What did he say? Was what he said plausibly related to reality? Did he logically link his arguments to a coherent conclusion?

Well, reading Dr. CPW will leave you bereft of reason, but with plenty of feelz. It's almost as if she didn't learn a damn thing from Google proving they are close minded bigots by firing the guy who suggested they might be close minded bigots. In her turn, she does a bang-up job reinforcing any impression that might be lurking the land that women are incapable of fact based reasoning.

According to her bio, she is a scientist, activist, writer. I'm pretty sure those don't scan at all well. Even more unfortunate, she is apparently incapable of simple html (Here's my CV (email me for an up to date one) …).

She has been published in exactly zero places that matter to an actual scientist.

She tells us that she is Principal Investigator on an FQXi Large Grant, Epistemological Schemata of Astro | Physics: A Reconstruction of Observers. Summary:

The problem of the lack of diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) has recently come to the fore in American discourse about the future of innovation and discovery. "Diversity‚" has become a buzzword that is often thrown around without much interrogation into the history of science and how the evolution of ideas in STEM has affected participation of diverse people in science. In this project, we consider the relationship between the problem of diversity and the history of how ideas in physics and astronomy are created. Motivated by events in the astronomical community, as well as long standing problems with the exclusion of minorities, we discuss a need for a new way to approach our roles as observers. There is a profound relationship between science, technology, and colonialism. While understanding this has traditionally been the purview of social scientists, we believe we must become actively involved in building on these ideas. Our proposal therefore asks: How do the physics/astronomy communities conceive of observers and what is a framework for reconstituting "observer" in a way that acknowledges people who have traditionally existed outside of the European Enlightenment framework? How might this change knowledge production in science?

Not even the sainted Monty Python could parody this whole confederacy of dunces.

Now it is time to move all my bookmarks to Safari.

TomJ

The Sussex Sgt has inspired a new hashtag for things you assume have, just have, to be satire but, unbelievably, aren't: #BeyondElfwick

Ian

Richard Epstein weighs in on the legal aspects here.

Ed Snack

I can't believe I missed all the excitement, being on holiday and all. I guess I'll just have to stick around now for the 400 club. Or is that just being too colonial ?

And it looks like the ol' gmail address will have to go along with the search defaults, or is that inverted virtue signalling gone a little too far...

jabrwok

In my day no lesbian deserving of the prefix hench- would be seen dead in heels.

But what if they're also *roller skates*?!

dicentra

Sorry to join the party so late. I need to correct what seems to be a misconception:

James Damore knew exactly what he was doing.

His interview with Jordan Peterson reveals a different timeline.

After being upset by the secretive and possibly illegal content in the diversity training, he wrote up the memo, then posted it to an internal group called "Skeptics." He was asking for feedback.

Someone in that group leaked the memo to Gizmodo. Heads exploded. Senior staff shamed him in front of the whole company. Before he was fired he complained to NRLB.

He's still reeling from the events.

Accounts make it sound like he spammed the whole company with the memo, but he did no such thing. Had the sniveling crapweasel in the Skeptics group not leaked the memo, this all might not have happened.

The leaker had it out for him. The leaker wanted the scalp.

Wotta company.

::spit::

Ian

Senior staff shamed him in front of the whole company.

This is why Richard Epstein is saying that the best case Damore has is to sue for defamation, since he was not "perpetuating gender stereotypes" but explicitly rejecting that kind of simplistic thinking in words and graphs.

jabrwok

A different example of panty-bunched mindset.

If you were especially observant during your years on campus, you may have noticed a stone carving by the York Street entrance to Sterling Memorial Library that depict a hostile encounter: a Puritan pointing a musket at a Native American (top). When the library decided to reopen the long-disused entrance as the front door of the new Center for Teaching and Learning, says head librarian Susan Gibbons, she and the university’s Committee on Art in Public Spaces decided the carving’s “presence at a major entrance to Sterling was not appropriate.” The Puritan’s musket was covered over with a layer of stone (bottom) that Gibbons says can be removed in the future without damaging the original carving.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

...the sniveling crapweasel in the Skeptics group...

Sniveling crapweasel is good, but I think the proper term is "informant" or "mole".

Ian

Or stool-pigeon, tattle-tale, snitch, squealer, grass, rat...

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

Or stool-pigeon, tattle-tale, snitch, squealer, grass, rat...

Unfortunately, G-Man was already taken, but wouldn't have been problematic, as they say, anyway.

Angus

I'll always remember where i was the day we hit 300 comments...

Daniel Ream

Someone in that group leaked the memo to Gizmodo. Heads exploded. Senior staff shamed him in front of the whole company. Before he was fired he complained to NRLB.

Ah, I see. It's been hard getting accurate reporting on this, the news sources I saw implied he had an outstanding NLRB complaint before he wrote the memo.

Ian

It's been hard getting accurate reporting on this, the news sources I saw implied he had an outstanding NLRB complaint before he wrote the memo.

I wondered about that. I don't think it's true, I think it's probably been confused with an NLRB complaint made against Google in the recent past that accused the company of discrimination against women.

Joe Ego

From the Peterson interview, Damore said he'd posted it to a (unnamed) group but received no posted feedback for about a month. Then he posted to the "Skeptic" group, after which the document was leaked.

I don't know whether the NLRB complaint was filed before he was fired, before he posted to skeptic, or before he posted it a month earlier. Given his expressed belief in the illegality or inappropriateness of what came out of the diversity meeting he attended before writing the document, it seems entirely likely he could have filed the complaint very early in this chain of events.

Ian

There's some info here. It seems from the article that the complaint and the firing happened on the same day (Monday), though the NLRB case has Tuesday's date. I don't recall Damore being asked whether he filed it before or after. I have read elsewhere that the NLRB prohibits (in some presumably-unenforceable way) companies from firing employees who have filed a complaint. I suppose it'll all come out in the wash.

David

A compendium of gender research:

Damore is correct that there are “population level differences in distributions” of traits that are likely to be relevant for understanding gender gaps at Google. Even if we set aside all questions about the origins of these differences, the fact remains that there are gender differences in a variety of traits, and especially in interest/enjoyment (rather than ability) in the adult population from which Google and all other tech firms recruit.… Damore was drawing attention to empirical findings that seem to have been previously unknown or ignored at Google.

Sean Stevens and Jonathan Haidt, here.

Jeff Guinn

My last comment posted, but isn't here ...

David

My last comment posted, but isn’t here...

There’s nothing in the spam filter. Try again?

Jeff Guinn

My mistake. I had no idea there were that many more comments.

David

It’s been lively.

Jeff Guinn

There seems to be a real pattern to these SJW jeremiads -- pick a high status/high pay occupation -- political office, CEOs, tech jobs, etc. -- then start a religious-like war to eliminate the wrong thinkers, or at least pressure them into submission, while demanding government remedial action.

SFAIK, the NYT has not taken up arms against small engine mechanics which, last time anyone checked, was less than 2% female. (Which is also true for any occupation with the term "mechanic" stuck to it.)

Okay, true enough -- not high status, or high pay.

But then there is my profession -- airline pilot. Back in the dark ages, mid-1970s, women were prohibited from being military or airline pilots. In relatively short order, both restrictions were eliminated, as well they should have been.

Nearly as quickly, women's presence on the flight deck skyrocketed from 0% to just more than 5%.

And has remained there ever since. The company I fly for is no different than the rest. Right at 5%. We will be hiring 400 pilots this year, and so far about one in 20 has been a woman.

Yet we hear nothing from the SJWs about this patriarchal affront in a high status/high pay career field.

Hmmm. I wonder why.

Perhaps it is because there are absolutely no barriers to entry, plus every woman* who gets the required qualifications and is is not manifestly mentally ill gets hired. Further progress (presuming sufficient skill) is entirely determined by seniority and choice.

Against whom would the jeremiad be directed, except women themselves?


* As well as every other officially aggrieved group. (Interestingly, Asians -- granted, not an officially aggrieved group -- make upalmost 0% of airline pilots.)

David

There seems to be a real pattern to these SJW jeremiads

See also just about anything here tagged academia.

prm

http://quillette.com/2017/08/11/stop-equating-science-truth/

Written by a woman. Not that it bloody matters.

jabrwok

last time anyone checked

The most recent stats I've found a little more recent (2014) than those to which Mr. Guinn linked (2009), but the data aren't much different: https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/Nontraditional%20Occupations.pdf.

Lindybeige has recently posted a video (on YouTube, alas) that touches on this. He's currently going through the _Book of Questions_, one at a time, answering the questions from his perspective. The current question is "Which, if either, of the two sexes do you think has it easier in life, and have you ever wanted to be a member of the opposite sex?" The question was obviously formulated by a benighted sexist who thought that there were only two "genders" and that they were somehow hard-wired rather than fluid!

jabrwok

Written by a woman

Her last sentence it troubling: "Because the deepest truth is that those roles have an ancient and important meaning, which is now desperately out of date."

Specifically the bolded phrase. How does she know that those roles are out of date? What does "out of date" even mean? Do we no longer need sex roles? Modern tech allows each sex to compete more effectively in the other's domain, but our brains are still different, and attempts to eliminate or ignore those differences, to declare them "out of date", strike me as wishful thinking on the part of those who dislike their genetic inheritance.

Given that those societies which eliminate sexual discrimination find themselves naturally becoming more sexually segregated in professions and lifestyles, I find it difficult to accept that the sex-roles dictated by evolution actually are out of date. They appear to bring quite a bit of satisfaction to those who embrace them, else we wouldn't see so many people doing so when they're free to choose otherwise.

Sporkatus

When a thread just won't die and the comments they fly, thats Damore...

jabrwok

@Sporkatus,

Is that a hint?:-).

Sporkatus

We've been commenting on this post so long. It would lack in the romance of Italian American New York to stop now, probably.

Apropos of nothing, are you Ace's Arthur K., or just using the same profile pic as his Twitter by coincidence?

dcardno

Written by a woman....
...and a professor at The Evergreen State College, a school which provided some amusement recently. She must stick out like a sore thimb there!

dicentra

Here's an article in the Atlantic by a woman who was in IT and then decided to leave:

Thinking back to those women I knew in IT, I can't imagine any of them would have spent a weekend building a fiber-channel network in her basement.

I’m not saying such women don’t exist; I know they do. I’m just saying that if they exist in equal numbers to the men, it’s odd that I met so very many men like that, and not even one woman like that, in a job where all the women around me were obviously pretty comfortable with computers. We can’t blame it on residual sexism that prevented women from ever getting into the field; the number of women working with computers has actually gone down over time. And I find it hard to blame it on current sexism. No one told that guy to go home and build a fiber-channel network in his basement; no one told me I couldn’t. It’s just that I would never in a million years have chosen to waste a weekend that way.
...
And yet, you still have to ask whether shamestorming Damore and getting him sacked was really the best way to convince him -- or anyone else -- that he’s mistaken. Did anyone’s understanding of the complex quandaries of gender diversity advance? If there were guys at Google wondering whether the women around them really deserved their jobs, did anyone wake up the morning after Damore's firing with the revelation: “Good God, how could I have been so blind?” No, I suspect those guys are now thinking: “You see? Women can’t handle math or logic.”

The mob reaction did prove that women indeed have some power in tech. But the power to fire people is not why most people get into engineering. Good engineers want to make things. The conversation around Damore's memo hasn't made the world a better place, as they say in Silicon Valley. It has just made a lot of people angry.

Ian

Some good points there. But the more I look at this, the more I think it's the contradictions that need to be boiled down even more. Something like: "They say all men are rapists, but if men and women are the same then are all women rapists?" or "What is meant by 'the patriarchy' if men and women are the same?", etc.

Monty James

I don't think it was the patriarchy that took Damore's livelihood away. What I mean by that is that accusations of 'patriarchy' or 'racism' are pretty much never made in good faith these days. They are simply meant to attract the swarm from their hive, doom for the victim the intended outcome. It seems based on your post above, Ian, that Damore knew this, and I admire him for it.

One can roll up into a ball and hope all the stinging doesn't hurt too much, or fight back. Preferably with coal oil and a match.

Ian

What I mean by that is that accusations of 'patriarchy' or 'racism' are pretty much never made in good faith these days. They are simply meant to attract the swarm from their hive, doom for the victim the intended outcome. It seems based on your post above, Ian, that Damore knew this, and I admire him for it.

I struggled to grasp your meaning in that for a few moments, and it's difficult because I (and I think also Damore) don't operate with the mindset that there is an evil patriarchy of any sort, so it's not like that view has to be countered by saying it's a means to generate a mob, though that is undoubtedly what happens in effect. I think it's a lot simpler to understand "patriarchy" as being a competitive effort amongst men to find the best amongst them who can mate with females. These views (evil patriarchy vs. the Jordan Peterson view of patriarchy) are so divergent that it makes my head hurt to try to reconcile them in any meaningful way. However, for the benefit of this thread I will simply state that I both agree and disagree with you in some unspecified way which we can perhaps work out over the next 80 or so comments.

---
...trying to keep this thread alive, since 8th August 2017...

Daniel Ream

I can't imagine any of them would have spent a weekend building a fiber-channel network in her basement.

*Eyeballs seven-handset open source VOIP phone system in spare room*

*Casually nudges server behind couch with foot*

David

which we can perhaps work out over the next 80 or so comments.

“More power to the internet.”

Ian

This is the Death Zone, above 8,000m where the air is thin. Glancing back, I see the discarded oxygen bottles and the frozen, transparent shapes of lifeless hands reaching, grasping for something above the murderous ice...

...this is peak commentary...

Ian

Obviously I meant to say translucent, but the air is so thin...

jabrwok

are you Ace's Arthur K.

Assuming that that was directed at me, nope. I occasionally lurk at the HQ, but I don't like the comments structure (can't tell who's responding to whom without a LOT of scrolling), so I never comment there. Hadn't noticed that someone else was using the same profile pic.

WTP

Thought this relevant yesterday but backed out as I felt I've been overposting lately (cue NWA Bored as hell and I wanna get ill so I go to the place where my homeboys chill), plus I felt it was coming from my OCD because it hadn't been posted yet...No...I...won't...be...the...first...one...this...time...but seeing as we're going for a record or something (have the Guinness people been notified?)...

There are four lights

Not to mention, there are two genders....

Monty James

"...trying to keep this thread alive, since 8th August 2017..."

Radiation from the 'Number 300 Shot' killed many, but somehow a few of us survived. I feel ... different. Changed. Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread. Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters, and give thanks to our Bomblord, David, may he detonate forever.

Sporkatus

Hadn't noticed that someone else was using the same profile pic.
As I'm sure you're aware, Ace's place doesn't allow for the use of a user pic, but one of the gents who co-blogs there from time to time uses that picture on his Twitter profile. Suspected it was coincidence, now confirmed.

From 18-1 over at Ace, on the Vogue Chelsea Manning cover:


'How many women in this picture I am holding up, Winston?'

'None.'

'And if the party says that it is not none but one -- then how many?'

'None.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the picture of Manning still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

Ian

[...] Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread. Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters [...]

I don't often get a chance to do this, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSFR43Z600

Gawd bless thee, Richard Stanley, you eccentric bastard.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

I feel ... different. Changed.

You didn't listen to Bert, some of us are fine.

David

I feel... different. Changed. Able to survive and prosper on this blackened, poisoned wasteland of a thread.

Check for superpowers. All those gamma rays must have done something.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

Back to the original topic...heh.

WTP

Check for superpowers. All those gamma rays must have done something.

Yeah...yep...sure did...thanks for that...

I know, credit note only.

Did I mention I'm bored?

dicentra

There's more of that excellence here: https://twitter.com/adra21/status/896014777725575170

I suspect Sabo.

dicentra

There are four lights

Just wondering… what if you went along with the torturer, agreeing fairly early on that the answer was whatever they said it was?

In other words, what if you pretend to be agreeable to their demands — or pretend to be broken when you're not? Would they figure it out and keep on torturing?

Or would they release you, satisfied that you were duly reeducated, and you carry on in your merry way with your mind and soul intact?

dicentra

Even MOAR guerrilla art. Now I suspect not Sabo but Apple recruitment. https://twitter.com/AlexRubalcava/status/896029916558270464

Ian

In other words, what if you pretend to be agreeable to their demands — or pretend to be broken when you're not? Would they figure it out and keep on torturing?

Or would they release you, satisfied that you were duly reeducated, and you carry on in your merry way with your mind and soul intact?

You're clearly not going to make it to 400 comments. You have been re-educated. Just give up now.

Sporkatus

Just wondering… what if you went along with the torturer

I suspect it has much to do with the experience level of the torturer. An experienced torturer would realize that becoming broken was the important thing, and would continue to press misery long after apparent assent and somewhat past apparent breaking, with the assent given as an additional point of pressure. Just in case.

A more foolish torturer would, as you say, fail to seal the deal.

A good example of experienced torturer vs. clever victim can be seen in Farscape, with Stark and Scorpius.

dicentra

CONFIRMED: It's Sabo — https://twitter.com/unsavoryagents

dicentra

This article has more photos from Sabo, plus some of his comments: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/google-mocked-street-art-office-1028914

Sporkatus

There's also, of course, the sense in which even false assent degrades the spirit in a way they want...
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/08/07/refuse-to-accept-the-lies--before-it-is-too-late-n2365296

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

This article has more photos from Sabo...

As funny as the signs are, I'd be willing to bet that Apple is as much of a hive mind as google, and that Damore would have gotten canned over there too.

prm

Not all correct, but blimey, the NYT:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html

jabrwok

but blimey, the NYT

Lots of comments there (over 2,000 as I write this). I didn't read any of them, but I'd be willing to bet that at least a significant minority are calling for the NYT to fire Brooks:-P.

Jeff Guinn
[jabrwok:] The most recent stats I've found a little more recent (2014) than those to which Mr. Guinn linked (2009)

Thanks, I tried to find something newer. Oddly, your link is broken, even though there is no apparent reason it should be.

Jeff Guinn

My son and I love this.

Women watching? Somewhere south of zero.

Coincidence? I think not.

Ian

Thanks, I tried to find something newer. Oddly, your link is broken, even though there is no apparent reason it should be.

This is possibly the most polite thread I've ever been involved in. I didn't post the link, but if you remove the final full point you will achieve relief.

Pogonip

373rd!

Ha! Eat my dust!

Monty James

I don't often get a chance to do this, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSFR43Z600

Thank you Ian, loved it. Tells our story.

Ian

Thank you Ian, loved it. Tells our story.

I appreciate your thanks, and I know, now, that you really get it. But I'm not sure. Could you possibly elaborate, over (say) 27 comments?

Geezer

You're clearly not going to make it to 400 comments. You have been re-educated. Just give up now.

Interesting advice. I'll consider it.

Geezer

This is possibly the most polite thread I've ever been involved in.

I think it's one of the Lodge Hall rules. Right after this one:

Geezer

Not to mention, there are two genders....

I disagree. In English, there are three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. In Biology, our species has two sexes: male and female.

Farnsworth M. Muldoon

I disagree.

That is just because you are not woke. It is unclear whether regrooving can correct this.

Geezer

It is unclear whether regrooving can correct this.

It is, indeed, unclear. I wonder what the others might think.

WTP

2
a : sex the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

One gender/sex is empowered by nature to create the sperm and can walk from the process and one is empowered by nature to create the egg and nurture and produce the offspring. Yes, there exists hermaphroditism/intersex which, except in the rarest circumstances, cannot reproduce.

There are four lights. We can argue if you can ever have exactly four of anything. If the number of photons coming from one set of "three" lights might exceed the number of photons eminating from "four" lights. We can argue that oral sex isn't really sex. We can say we didn't wipe the server with a cloth so therefore we didn't wipe the server. Anyone can claim to be African American because, hey, we all came from Africa.

While I'm at it, I believe in the soul, the cock, the pussy, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

OK, that last bit was TMI, but you get the idea.

Geezer

OK, that last bit was TMI, but you get the idea.

Remember, it's the number of comments, not the number of words, that will get the baton across the line.

Sonny Wayze

"Here's an article in the Atlantic by a woman who was in IT..."

McMegan hasn't been at The Atlantic for a while. No matter, you got the link right, and I'm just trying to up the comment count.

WTP

Remember, it's the number of comments, not the number of words, that will get the baton across the line.

Well, I did consider breaking that into a couple posts but I got on a roll and forgetted. I blame the gin. This should make up for it, though.

Geezer

This should make up for it, though.

It's a start.

Geezer

I blame the gin.

At this hour? You should have switched to whiskey.

WTP

At this hour? You should have switched to whiskey.

Well, it was earlier. And I cut it with vodka. Whiskey is for cooler weather. It's humid and hot AF down here right now.

Also, had dicentra's earlier link opened but never looked at it until now. Interesting how many "smart" people have no idea that there's a Venice in California. I understand being ignorant of the fact but to question why signs in "Venice" were in English, not to mention the broad streets and dearth of boats. It's not like southern CA is some media backwater. I mean, they're supposedly "smart" people.

What's this put us at? 387?

Geezer

It's humid and hot AF down here right now.

Ain't you got no air conditioning?

Vince N

On the one hand, the feminists claim that there are no differences between men and women (and that sex/gender is a "social construct" rather than a biological reality) and therefore a dearth of (say) women in corporate boardrooms is indicative of discrimination.

On the other hand, they also claim that women are more "nurturing" and the like - including that adding more women in the boardroom brings a different perspective (and allegedly higher profits).

These two claims contradict each other. Like all cultural Marxists, the feminists are not interested in truth or reality, only in power over others. This puts them among the lowest form of human being.

The thought that more "nurturing" women might be less inclined to become corporate directors does not occur to them. And when you point it out to them, they put their hands over their ears and sing "la la la I can't hear you", or tell you to go f*** yourself.

Hal

Let us continue on to Number 400, mutant brothers and sisters, and give thanks to our Bomblord, David, may he detonate forever.

Glory be to the bomb, and to the holy fallout, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.

---Actually, I was remembering Praise Bomb from whom all blessing flooooow . . . but that might have been from a novelization.

Hal

. . . O'Brien watched him . . .

I'm currently reading Melvyn Bragg's bio of Richard Burton, where even early on in the book there is commentary on Burton popping up to do 1984.

Ian

In other news, there's a paywalled op-ed by the nominal subject of this discussion. Most, if not all of it, can be found here.

David

This is possibly the most polite thread I’ve ever been involved in.

[ Discreetly slides coaster under Ian’s drink. ]

Ian

So [covering up his shame at having potentially damaged the host's coffee-table copy of Maps of Meaning], is it just me or does it seem that the war of words is turning in our hero's favour? Several writers have been pointing out, quite convincingly, that the other side have overplayed their hand in those early media reports about the incident, whilst The Survey Says that the decision was a bad one. Meanwhile, claims of bullying by Milo and the like don't appear to be gaining traction.

prm

There's a post about the NYT Brooks piece here:

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2017/david-brooks-being-clueless-again/

Where the lie us repeated:

'Damore is “championing scientific research” only in the sense that he used the words; he didn’t actually include any citations.'

Now I've a question. If you follow B&W you will know that, since Trump won, the writer, never terribly stable, has completely lost her shit. Most post are foam-flecked hate rants. (I would say it's funny but such delusional untethering from reality genuinely leaves me concerned for her mental health.)

The point is, she may well *genuinely believe* her delusions. In this case, she may well really believe it to be true that there are no citations, presumably because in her echo chamber bubble she never read anyone pointing out the deceptive editing and so never read his genuine document (and I will politely assume she has read the censored version).

So is she actually lying?

David

Several writers have been pointing out, quite convincingly, that the other side have overplayed their hand in those early media reports about the incident,

It’s best not to underestimate the capacity for dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness of people who declare themselves proponents of “social justice,” or the determination with which they may insert themselves into positions of leverage and potential intimidation. As noted previously, “social justice” devotees are often much more psychologically invested in their pieties and conformity, in terms of self-image, imagined virtue, and class status. Self-flattery, self-exaltation, is a powerful drug. As is an ideal camouflage for malice.

But of course other people will sometimes see this dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness, and see the kinds of personalities it attracts - and they may wonder how they, or their children, would be treated, given the opportunity.

Ian

So is she actually lying?

"Never ascribe to malice what can be put down to incompetence."

I remember an episode a few years back where I came upon some examples of plagiarism and make-believe in what purported to be an academic-style edition of a certain 17thC manuscript. The author cited a couple of documents as "proof" that a certain thing had happened, which almost certainly had not happened: the documents in question contained things other than what he claimed. You could say he lied, expecting no-one to check his citations, but after long consideration I came to the view that he was just incredibly lazy and stupid, and that he merely wanted to believe his own claims (some of which were clearly ego-driven). The reason I came to this view is that I realised there is no clear dividing line between lying and stupidity: in fact it is almost essential to the "liar" that they believe their own lies, and the reason they come to a false belief is that their stupidity equates to being too lazy to examine all the evidence. This is why liars often lie in ways that are obvious to others and which hurt themself. They might see the contrary evidence (in this case the woman in question has probably seen or at least heard about the academic citations Damore made), but they're so stupid/lazy that they can't comprehend it. If these citations were pointed out then she would find ways around it, by being too angry at the person pointing it out to actually bother to check the citations, or (when looking at the paper in question) by semi-deliberately not spending the very small amount of time necessary to recognise that they are citations, or (once recognising the papers in question exist) by falling back on the notion that they're not properly academic (being too lazy to read them to see whether they are or not); or, ultimately case, by allowing their laziness to take over entirely and refusing to discuss the subject anymore.

Ian

It’s best not to underestimate the capacity for dogmatism, dishonesty and spitefulness of people who declare themselves proponents of “social justice”

Oh, I really don't underestimate their capacity for all those things: in fact I would go further, and state that those characteristics are almost indistinguishable from their belief in "social justice" (i.e., ad hoc violence). But, to carry on from my earlier point in the comment above, I do think that all of those things derive from laziness and stupidity, so I pity them too.

By the way, the corollary to my theory of lazy=stupid=lies is that the very clever people (e.g., in academia) are the ones who are really, really careful about reading everything in their field of study, no matter how seemingly trivial. This takes effort.

Ian

P.S. But the cleverest of all are the ones who know which stuff they can safely ignore, so it seems like they do no work at all.

TomJ

In case anyone fancies another rebuttal of the Slate piece: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/slate-article-questions-the-veracity-of-science-because-of-the-google-document/

Ian

Are we at 400 yet?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blogroll