4 ms·

>what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population? With all due

>what difference does the statistical differences found between genders in the general population matter for any small subset of that population? With all due respect, this is an absurd question. Statistical differences between the genders in the general population will very plausibly cause differences in the representation of each gender in a particular field, like computer science. Do I really need to elaborate more on why this is the case? To claim that the causes of gender differences are a settled science, that agrees with the postmodernists and feminists, and so assuredly that an opinion based on a different interpretation deserves to be punished and otherwise ignored, is absolute nonsense. If anything, the social constructionist position on gender differences has been thoroughly discredited by the experimental evidence, to the point where the media and Google's reaction to the memo is, without a doubt, an expression of anti-scientific dogma.

clavalle 9y ago
It is in no way an absurd question. Google is not selecting their employees at random. Google is not promoting people at random. Google is not placing employees in a neutral environment relative to the rest of the population. Google is not providing neutral support to employees relative to the general population. There is no reason to expect that their subset of the population should conform to a general population skew. In short, plausibility =/= probably. You repeat yourself a lot for someone who keeps bringing up dogma in this conversation like it means something in context. Can you point to my dogmatic position? The guy was fired because he let everyone know that he is more than happy to point to descriptions of the general population and sinister world spanning conspiracy theories in order to maintain a dismissive and belittling attitude within the work environment toward women that happens to support a status quo that directly benefits himself rather than support the stated goals of the company.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >There is no reason to expect that their subset of the population should conform to a general population skew. Absurd. Differences in the general population will translate into differences in the number of men that pursue CS and related fields, which will affect the gender composition of the applicant pool that Google recruits from. >Can you point to my dogmatic position? The dogma is in you ignoring and denying basic statistics and common sense in order to defend the ideological premise underlying Google's discriminative (affirmative action) policies. >The guy was fired because he let everyone know that he is more than happy to point to descriptions of the general population and sinister world spanning conspiracy theories in order to maintain a dismissive and belittling attitude within the work environment toward women that happens to support a status quo that directly benefits himself rather than support the stated goals of the company. This grossly mischaracterizes the content of the memo and the veracity of his arguments. Your comment displays utter and unscrupulous intolerance to opinions that disagree with your postmodernist viewpoint on gender. It rejects the relevance of overwhelming empirical evidence on the causes of gender differences in the general population, that are manifestly relevant to gender representation in tech. Your comment embodies the prioritisation of dogma over science, and the willingness to use any means, including blatantly mischaracterizing the arguments made by ideological opponents in order to justify their being fired, to achieve one's ends.
  - dang 9y ago
    Ok, since we asked you to stop doing this ideological boilerplate thing and you've repeatedly ignored us, we've banned this latest account. Would you please not create accounts to abuse Hacker News with?
    - Jabanga2 9y ago
      I'm making this account just to respond to the ban: I didn't actually know I was responding to a moderator until after I made the comment, at which point I thought it better to leave the comment up for consistency sake. I also didn't think I repeatedly ignored the moderator, as I tried to avoid repeating myself after receiving the warning, which I thought was enough to meet the moderator's standards. I think it's inappropriate to limit discussion on issues that unavoidably deal with ideology on a central tech hub like this. When a Google employee is fired for speech running afoul company diversity policy there is a need for discussion relating to ideology. This is not off-topic and is not bleeding into inappropriate stories. Maybe there is an unwritten rule to: "not argue too vehemently about a non-tech-related issue", yet somehow I doubt that rule would be imposed if the issue related to politically incorrect discrimination, and an individual posted a number of comments strongly arguing against the discrimination (and the ideology justifying it). At the very least you should make your policy on this more transparent, as there are no clear guidelines on what kind of comments are acceptable, and it seems to be largely at whim of moderators and their personal take. Like I said, I was under the impression that I was heeding the warning, and suddenly I find I am banned. Perhaps if the rules and objectionable behavior were more clearly defined, fewer people would get banned. At the moment, it seems REALLY subjective.

clavalle 9y ago

It is in no way an absurd question. Google is not selecting their employees at random. Google is not promoting people at random. Google is not placing employees in a neutral environment relative to the rest of the population. Google is not providing neutral support to employees relative to the general population. There is no reason to expect that their subset of the population should conform to a general population skew. In short, plausibility =/= probably. You repeat yourself a lot for someone who keeps bringing up dogma in this conversation like it means something in context. Can you point to my dogmatic position? The guy was fired because he let everyone know that he is more than happy to point to descriptions of the general population and sinister world spanning conspiracy theories in order to maintain a dismissive and belittling attitude within the work environment toward women that happens to support a status quo that directly benefits himself rather than support the stated goals of the company.

Jabanga 9y ago
>There is no reason to expect that their subset of the population should conform to a general population skew. Absurd. Differences in the general population will translate into differences in the number of men that pursue CS and related fields, which will affect the gender composition of the applicant pool that Google recruits from. >Can you point to my dogmatic position? The dogma is in you ignoring and denying basic statistics and common sense in order to defend the ideological premise underlying Google's discriminative (affirmative action) policies. >The guy was fired because he let everyone know that he is more than happy to point to descriptions of the general population and sinister world spanning conspiracy theories in order to maintain a dismissive and belittling attitude within the work environment toward women that happens to support a status quo that directly benefits himself rather than support the stated goals of the company. This grossly mischaracterizes the content of the memo and the veracity of his arguments. Your comment displays utter and unscrupulous intolerance to opinions that disagree with your postmodernist viewpoint on gender. It rejects the relevance of overwhelming empirical evidence on the causes of gender differences in the general population, that are manifestly relevant to gender representation in tech. Your comment embodies the prioritisation of dogma over science, and the willingness to use any means, including blatantly mischaracterizing the arguments made by ideological opponents in order to justify their being fired, to achieve one's ends.
- dang 9y ago
  Ok, since we asked you to stop doing this ideological boilerplate thing and you've repeatedly ignored us, we've banned this latest account. Would you please not create accounts to abuse Hacker News with?
  - Jabanga2 9y ago
    I'm making this account just to respond to the ban: I didn't actually know I was responding to a moderator until after I made the comment, at which point I thought it better to leave the comment up for consistency sake. I also didn't think I repeatedly ignored the moderator, as I tried to avoid repeating myself after receiving the warning, which I thought was enough to meet the moderator's standards. I think it's inappropriate to limit discussion on issues that unavoidably deal with ideology on a central tech hub like this. When a Google employee is fired for speech running afoul company diversity policy there is a need for discussion relating to ideology. This is not off-topic and is not bleeding into inappropriate stories. Maybe there is an unwritten rule to: "not argue too vehemently about a non-tech-related issue", yet somehow I doubt that rule would be imposed if the issue related to politically incorrect discrimination, and an individual posted a number of comments strongly arguing against the discrimination (and the ideology justifying it). At the very least you should make your policy on this more transparent, as there are no clear guidelines on what kind of comments are acceptable, and it seems to be largely at whim of moderators and their personal take. Like I said, I was under the impression that I was heeding the warning, and suddenly I find I am banned. Perhaps if the rules and objectionable behavior were more clearly defined, fewer people would get banned. At the moment, it seems REALLY subjective.