7 ms·
But you aren't aloud to talk about that openly.
by corporateslave2 9y ago
But you aren't aloud to talk about that openly.
- bdamm 9y agoCounterpoint: Here we are, talking about it openly. Even Mr. Damore who previously was employed at Google was and is able to talk about it openly.
- corporateslave3 9y agohe was fired?
- bdamm 9y agoFree speech doesn't mean you get to keep your job when you say it. It means it isn't illegal or impossible to speak your opinion. That doesn't mean being as ass has no consequences.
- nv-vn 9y agoI disagree but even leaving that comment aside, the OP is saying you aren't allowed to talk about it openly. "Allowed" does not imply a government here, but society/employers/etc. If your employer fires you for saying "fuck", clearly you aren't allowed to say "fuck" at work.
- kemerover 9y ago"Openly" as in "anonymously through the Internet"
- dqpb 9y agoIdeas deserve to rise or fall independent of the people who utter them.
- jakobegger 9y agoIt’s obvious that gender and genetics have an effect on interests. I doubt that anybody challenges that, and you can go talk about that without anyone raising an eyebrow. What is a problem is if you use that to justify discrimination. Just because members of a demographic are statistically different, it isn’t okay to treat individuals differently because they belong to a certain demographic. And that’s what people are complaining about! People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” So why do companies fire people who say stuff like that? Because discrimination is stupid from a business point of view: variance within demographics is much larger than variance of the mean between demographics. So if you hire people based on them being part of a “good” demographic, you will end up with worse hires than if you actually selected for individual aptitude.
- corporateslave2 9y agoI don't mean to start a flame war here, but when you say: People don’t complain when you say: “A lot of the fastest marathon runners are from Kenia”. People will complain if you use that fact to justify an imbalance in your workforce: “Well, it’s obvious that we hire only people from Kenia since marathons show they are much faster!” This is precisely the point. If objectively they are better, why is it discrimination to only hire them? Definitely you give everyone the opportunity to work for you, but if a singular group always performs better, is it really your fault? And if society did determine that it was your fault, how long could that go on for? Forever? How long can that charade last? Hasn't a Darwinian economy (capitalism) done the best ever for man kind (massively raised standards of living over the last 200 years).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- govg 9y agoOne thing you might be mixing up is population vs individual. If you hold some sort of hiring process where the skill tested is similar to that tested in marathon running, then yes, Kenyans will tend to do better as a population. That does not mean you should actively discourage everyone else from applying. Your process should be blind to race/class of applicants, if some race/class does show a higher affinity towards specific skills, that will be the natural outcome of your process. TL;DR - Don't hire only Kenyans, that's discrimination. You might end up with a lot of Kenyans if you hire only marathoners, but that's not the same.