Welcome to Open Carnage

A resource for gamers and technology enthusiasts, with unique means of rewarding content creation and support. Have a wander to see why we're worth the time!

Krazychic

Google fires engineer who “crossed the line” with diversity memo

18 posts in this topic
Quote

Do you come to that conclusion by [not letting yourself be] affected by the details of causation?

It was reached after your insistence on digging your heels deeper and deeper into particulars and semantics without making any other rebuttal. The cause of that seems to be your assumption that your arguments need no further defense past simply being stated. Notice how your first instinct is an attempt at belittling me for using colloquial vocabulary (despite the fact that it conveys meaning just the same as if I had taken a refresher course on statistics and whipped out my textbook), yet you make no assertions to contest a valid method of developing probability. All you contest is the order of the sarcastic example, and you're incorrect even there, but I was pretty drunk so maybe I was unclear by saying "observation" twice. You witness a bear shitting in the woods. This happens several times. You never see a bear shit in the city because, well, bears don't live in cities. Someone asks you, "where is bearshit most often found?" You would answer what?

 

We are built to develop a sense of the probability of anything we've experienced happening again. The internet is a great tool that can give your experiences a global breadth. The downfall of it is when people form emotional attachment to their conclusions, leading them to cling to obsolete conclusions (either through confirmation bias or outright denial) rather than adapting those conclusions or forming new ones.

 

I often witness women at work stand and talk to each other when they should be doing something else. In my memory there have been 2 female employees to whom this did not apply, and 1 male employee to whom it did. You likely presume (based on your own developed sense of probability) that someone who expresses a desire to group people by certain traits is experiencing a bigoted state. It is my absolute assurance to you that no emotion is involved in (or arises from) my conclusion that women (on average) are more focused on interpersonal dynamics (jargon for "gossip and drama") in the workplace than men, and I neither feel nor exercise any emotion toward either them or the situation when I must (as their manager) ask them to return to their work. Now, we keep employees who want to do their job, and if they are standing and talking then I generally know that they are simply involuntarily distracted. If an employee has reached the point where I can tell that they are not experiencing an involuntary distraction, but rather seeking distraction (which usually is not in the form of socialization but in the form of literally standing doing nothing, a trait that has manifested equally frequently in men and women in my experience), I realize that they do not want to do their job and I simply fire them. There is no point in mixing feelings with business.

 

In addition, there have been 8 women whose actions have at one point or more resulted in dramatic or emotional circumstances which required managerial intervention. There have been 4 men in the same vein. The ratio here is closer but you must also consider that we employ about three to four times as many men as women (not by discriminate selection but by applicant availability) which is a fact that really elevates much of this.

 

I mentioned using the internet to widen the scope of our experiential understanding. It stands to reason that I've read others whose experiences match mine; but I actively seek opposition to my presumptions. So far I cannot find any to these that is not emotional.


Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of Open Carnage enjoy an ad-free experience!

On 8/11/2017 at 11:48 AM, TCK said:

I don't get why social politics are so popular nowadays.

I think it's a distraction.

 

The American left used to focus on both workers' issues and social issues. The 8 hour workday, the weekend, womens' suffrage, OSHA, and so on are all left-ish causes.

 

But at some point along the 20th century, the left was replaced by Neoliberalism. It tried to find a "third way" between left and right. Well it ended up on the side of big business, anti-welfare, deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade. Why do you think so many banks donated to Hillary? You've got big oil on the right, big pharma on the left. It's all pretty much the same as economic positions are concerned.

 

So, gutted of its populist pro-worker platform, the "left" doesn't have anything to fall back on except social arguments.

 

Consider the following issues:

  • Growing power of the "police state" (local and national)
  • Stagnant wages and slow job growth
  • Integrity of our voting system

Now let's filter them through identity politics:

  • Growing power of the "police state" (local and national) Black Lives Matter vs Blue Lives Matter
  • Stagnant wages and slow job growth Female Wage Gap vs Reverse Sexism
  • Integrity of our voting system "Democrats use illegal immigrants to vote" vs "Republics use voter suppression against blacks"

It takes issues we ought to be agreeing on, and turns them into an identity war.

Solaris and TCK like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easier and more profitable to bitch in circular arguments than it is to make it to the finish line and form a consensus. It's a cash cow for campaign donations, because it's forever in demand for figureheads to rise up and be a focal point of a non-issue and turn it into an issue. Fame, fortune and power. What more could you want?


Linux/Unix | InfoSec | Electronics | Radios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15.8.2017 at 7:20 AM, TCK said:

It was reached after your insistence on digging your heels deeper and deeper into particulars and semantics without making any other rebuttal.

I am not arguing particulars and semantics but questioning the logic behind your statements.
If I am using semantics, then only so far as I'm using words.

 

On 15.8.2017 at 7:20 AM, TCK said:

The cause of that seems to be your assumption that your arguments need no further defense past simply being stated.

Not true. Just look at my last post. Half of it is just stating an example.

 

On 15.8.2017 at 7:20 AM, TCK said:

 Notice how your first instinct is an attempt at belittling me for using colloquial vocabulary (despite the fact that it conveys meaning just the same as if I had taken a refresher course on statistics and whipped out my textbook), yet you make no assertions to contest a valid method of developing probability.

No, I simply had no idea what you actually meant with 'correlative' in that context (if you're referring to that as "belittling me for using colloquial vocabulary").


I am questioning your methods of acquiring cognition/ data. Once we have cleared that, then we may carry on to developing a valid method probability.
Otherwise I can see us both backpedaling in argumentations and getting nowhere as the basic principles on which these methods stand on are fundamentally flawed.

 

On 15.8.2017 at 7:20 AM, TCK said:

All you contest is the order of the sarcastic example, and you're incorrect even there, but I was pretty drunk so maybe I was unclear by saying "observation" twice.

The example itself was insufficient in pointing out inductive reasoning as both, the particular case and the given precondition, were based on empirical circumstances ('observations'). A (known) mistake on my side.
Yet, the insight about that logic is still unflawed and abstractable.

 

On 15.8.2017 at 7:20 AM, TCK said:

You witness a bear shitting in the woods. This happens several times. You never see a bear shit in the city because, well, bears don't live in cities. Someone asks you, "where is bearshit most often found?" You would answer what?

I would reply somewhere along the lines of:
"Well, when I was living in city X and was doing my observations about bears shitting, I could perceive that it would happen most of the time in the nearby forest Y and not in city X."
But I somehow don't see me ending up in such a bizarre situation...

 


On a side note: I would prefer it if we stopped talking about subjective perceptions and opinions of me and instead could go on with the topic at hand. This is btw the second time that these unasked remarks about myself happened and tbh I find your emotional outbursts tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'd truly like to talk about this, I'm sure we could have a discussion. At the moment I am once again pretty drunk and not looking to think too hard, but I did want to say that my "emotional" outbursts are only as emotional as you perceive them - I'm not emotionally invested in anything on the internet and all my remarks have stemmed from what seemed to me (as well as Weps and two people who have not publicly stated an opinion, so I will keep their names out of it) to be happening in any debate with you, which is that you will not engage the argument directly and instead spend much of your posts nitpicking the outskirts of a discussion. I don't get mad about it; I just don't enjoy it.

 

If you'll notice, the post you linked to begins with, "I genuinely am not trying to be aggressive here," and ends with, "I like you as a member." Those were meant to convey tone.

 

@WaeV I'm glad you said it. I didn't want to be the one to say it so I led with that very neutral, "I don't know why..." I actually wrote a small paper on it sophomore year, and tried to show how it's essentially a campaign.


Umh7x1l.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TCK said:

If you'd truly like to talk about this, I'm sure we could have a discussion. At the moment I am once again pretty drunk and not looking to think too hard, but I did want to say that my "emotional" outbursts are only as emotional as you perceive them - I'm not emotionally invested in anything on the internet [...]

If they are not emotional than they are simply unwise.

Maybe next time I will ask you beforehand if you're drunk before I invest time in typing out thought-through replies.

 

3 hours ago, TCK said:

[...] and all my remarks have stemmed from what seemed to me (as well as Weps and two people who have not publicly stated an opinion, so I will keep their names out of it) to be happening in any debate with you, which is that you will not engage the argument directly and instead spend much of your posts nitpicking the outskirts of a discussion. I don't get mad about it; I just don't enjoy it.

Well, I can tell you and your too-shy-to-face-me-directly-so-instead-we-are-going-to-talk-behind-his-back-associates that truth isn't democratic. I will handle these opinions as unfounded nonsense.

And if you (or others?) didn't have these outbursts, than we wouldn't even drift into these borderline off-topic discussion outskirts in which I am still obliged to react for reasons I state in the next paragraph. (*)

 

3 hours ago, TCK said:

If you'll notice, the post you linked to begins with, "I genuinely am not trying to be aggressive here," and ends with, "I like you as a member." Those were meant to convey tone.

"I'm not a Nazi but..." "There's no law against saying that... ". Same rhetoric, different context.

 

Example (from the linked post in my previous reply)

Quote

Look, I genuinely am not trying to be aggressive here; [...]. You refuse to connect dots in others' arguments and act as though those people are randomly dropping unrelated information so as to discredit them.

Introducing tone of objectivity and anti-aggression followed by insulting and unfounded allegation of stupidity and/or malice.

Which brings us to OC's guidelines:

Quote
  • Freedom of speech does not apply on Open Carnage. We value your opinions, but please be sensible, and respect your fellow members. Derogatory terms and harassment is not tolerated.

And neither do I. (*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a plumber. I've seen exactly zero female plumbers in my time as a plumber. Nobody is making a fuss about a lack of women in the construction industry.

 

Issues like this are only even issues because people are just plain stupid and narrow minded. If a woman can do the job, no matter what the job is, they should be paid what the job pays. No more, no less. If I was to hire an assistant, I'd be willing to budget somewhere between 10 and 14 dollars an hour depending on what they know and can do. If a woman can do what I'm willing to pay 14 for, I'm not going to pay her less than that just because she's a woman. It should be like that no matter what the job is.

Edited by Sunstriker7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.