6 ms·

W.. what? Literally your post. I'd have to quote the whole thing. "many people's first instinct". It wasn't many people's first instinct. Again, I read the art

by and0 9y ago

W.. what? Literally your post. I'd have to quote the whole thing. "many people's first instinct". It wasn't many people's first instinct. Again, I read the article, many others read the article and wrote detailed responses. It's not my job to point these out. Someone making a stupid argument does not obligate anyone to engage or correct them. A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If I submitted an internal memo advocating pedophilia or something everyone would rightfully dismiss me. No one would be obligated to engage with my dumb ass, and you're all acting like that would be some kind of tragedy or moral failing on the part of everyone around me, rather than me for writing a stupid memo in the first place. You should just say "I think women are inferior" rather than trying to dictate how people approach an incident adjacent to your agenda, just like white nationalists should just come out rather than being coy and hiding behind "free speech" issues.

mistermann 9y ago
> A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If the backlash is devoid of logic and facts, consisting mainly of character attacks and shaming....ya, that's "shutting it down". And if that's not enough, how about being fired from your job? It's amazing how differently people perceive the very same facts.
- and0 9y ago
  The backlash is not devoid of logic and facts. Again, a shitty argument does not merit a thesis on it's shittyness from everyone who dismisses it, and there are plenty of in-depth critiques that you would've sought out if your agenda was to actually look into it and better yourself. Also, Google firing him did not shut the argument down. He can happily draft more memos or expand on it. Google Docs is free.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > there are plenty of in-depth critiques I'd be interested to read a few if you could provide some links. This assumes they exist of course, from the reading I've done on the topic I haven't seen any substantial rebuttal linked anywhere, but I've heard more than one person complain that the only rebuttal they've seen is "sexist!". I have no particular horse in the race so if you do have content to back up your assertion I'd love to read it.
    - and0 9y ago
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143285-memo-to-all-tech-bros-sexism-not-biology-holds-women-back/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143285-memo-to-all-tec... Is probably the best response I can find at the moment. A few days back my Twitter was full of medium posts responding to specific points, but Twitter is not great about finding these things. I agree with the linked article 100%, which states that there is plenty of scientific evidence that states the contrary, and there is plenty of science done about cultural differences. A lot of what is so frustrating is that so much of this is just common sense, especially to identify that there are a huge number of cultural factors acting like a feedback to make people behave a certain way to meet expectations. I'd refute most religions the same way. It's very clear to me that, for example, the Bible was written by humans vs something divine, as the odds of a God thinking and behaving (being petty, spiteful, or even altruistic) exactly like the humans that read it do seems pretty slim and frankly unimaginative. There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular horse in the race) will always pretend that things are the way they are because of divine or otherwise pre-determined reasons. It's silly that people who consider themselves so rational are unable to comprehend how obvious this is. Also lol @ programs for underrepresented groups “increase race and gender tensions”. Get fucked, dude. edit: came across one of the ones I read before from a recently ex-Google employee: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... it's super good and worth a read
      - mistermann 9y ago
        Thanks for the article, but it is far from a substantive rebuttal, at best I would call it an opinion piece, with its "proof" based on logical errors and assumptions. > There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular horse in the race) will always pretend that things are the way they are because of divine or otherwise pre-determined reasons. It's silly that people who consider themselves so rational are unable to comprehend how obvious this is. You are mistaking your imagination for reality. You cannot read my mind. Regardless, you are the one advocating social engineering, not me, the onus is (or should be) on you to prove sexism is the cause of gender imbalances at companies. If sexism is so rampant, why is it so difficult to produce any evidence, and why is the "evidence" so commonly produced the equivalent of "bro-culture" conspiracy theories. That this is considered "evidence" only further illustrates how differently the human mind can perceive reality. > Also lol @ programs for underrepresented groups “increase race and gender tensions”. Get fucked, dude. What does this refer to? And please refrain from profanity and personal insults. If you have the moral high ground, as you seem to believe, no need to use filthy words and personal insults, your superior ideas should suffice, no? > edit: came across one of the ones I read before from a recently ex-Google employee: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...it's https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... super good and worth a read It opens with an outright lie: "You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it." Absolutely fascinating. EDIT: After reading that, my conclusion of how you find these sorts of articles compelling is that they are rebutting a twisted strawman of the original manifesto, where the author is imagined to be making a whole bunch of assertions that he really isn't. I think that explains quite nicely the breathtaking difference of perception. For what it is though, it is absolutely brilliant, extremely well done, and I mean that completely seriously. I'd bet big money that person will absolutely dominate in the corporate world.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > there are plenty of in-depth critiques Can you link to one?
jamesrcole 9y ago
> It wasn't many people's first instinct. There were many people doing exactly what I said in the HN comment threads, and, for another example, in the comments under George Takei's Facebook post on the incident.

by and0 9y ago

mistermann 9y ago

> A massive popular backlash against a shitty idea isn't "trying to shut it down". If the backlash is devoid of logic and facts, consisting mainly of character attacks and shaming....ya, that's "shutting it down". And if that's not enough, how about being fired from your job? It's amazing how differently people perceive the very same facts.

and0 9y ago
The backlash is not devoid of logic and facts. Again, a shitty argument does not merit a thesis on it's shittyness from everyone who dismisses it, and there are plenty of in-depth critiques that you would've sought out if your agenda was to actually look into it and better yourself. Also, Google firing him did not shut the argument down. He can happily draft more memos or expand on it. Google Docs is free.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > there are plenty of in-depth critiques I'd be interested to read a few if you could provide some links. This assumes they exist of course, from the reading I've done on the topic I haven't seen any substantial rebuttal linked anywhere, but I've heard more than one person complain that the only rebuttal they've seen is "sexist!". I have no particular horse in the race so if you do have content to back up your assertion I'd love to read it.
  - and0 9y ago
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143285-memo-to-all-tech-bros-sexism-not-biology-holds-women-back/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143285-memo-to-all-tec... Is probably the best response I can find at the moment. A few days back my Twitter was full of medium posts responding to specific points, but Twitter is not great about finding these things. I agree with the linked article 100%, which states that there is plenty of scientific evidence that states the contrary, and there is plenty of science done about cultural differences. A lot of what is so frustrating is that so much of this is just common sense, especially to identify that there are a huge number of cultural factors acting like a feedback to make people behave a certain way to meet expectations. I'd refute most religions the same way. It's very clear to me that, for example, the Bible was written by humans vs something divine, as the odds of a God thinking and behaving (being petty, spiteful, or even altruistic) exactly like the humans that read it do seems pretty slim and frankly unimaginative. There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular horse in the race) will always pretend that things are the way they are because of divine or otherwise pre-determined reasons. It's silly that people who consider themselves so rational are unable to comprehend how obvious this is. Also lol @ programs for underrepresented groups “increase race and gender tensions”. Get fucked, dude. edit: came across one of the ones I read before from a recently ex-Google employee: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788 https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... it's super good and worth a read
    - mistermann 9y ago
      Thanks for the article, but it is far from a substantive rebuttal, at best I would call it an opinion piece, with its "proof" based on logical errors and assumptions. > There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular horse in the race) will always pretend that things are the way they are because of divine or otherwise pre-determined reasons. It's silly that people who consider themselves so rational are unable to comprehend how obvious this is. You are mistaking your imagination for reality. You cannot read my mind. Regardless, you are the one advocating social engineering, not me, the onus is (or should be) on you to prove sexism is the cause of gender imbalances at companies. If sexism is so rampant, why is it so difficult to produce any evidence, and why is the "evidence" so commonly produced the equivalent of "bro-culture" conspiracy theories. That this is considered "evidence" only further illustrates how differently the human mind can perceive reality. > Also lol @ programs for underrepresented groups “increase race and gender tensions”. Get fucked, dude. What does this refer to? And please refrain from profanity and personal insults. If you have the moral high ground, as you seem to believe, no need to use filthy words and personal insults, your superior ideas should suffice, no? > edit: came across one of the ones I read before from a recently ex-Google employee: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man...it's https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... super good and worth a read It opens with an outright lie: "You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it." Absolutely fascinating. EDIT: After reading that, my conclusion of how you find these sorts of articles compelling is that they are rebutting a twisted strawman of the original manifesto, where the author is imagined to be making a whole bunch of assertions that he really isn't. I think that explains quite nicely the breathtaking difference of perception. For what it is though, it is absolutely brilliant, extremely well done, and I mean that completely seriously. I'd bet big money that person will absolutely dominate in the corporate world.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > there are plenty of in-depth critiques Can you link to one?

jamesrcole 9y ago

> It wasn't many people's first instinct. There were many people doing exactly what I said in the HN comment threads, and, for another example, in the comments under George Takei's Facebook post on the incident.