Seems pretty obvious learning with the mind isn't meant for bigot types, thus the stick approach.
Fascinating. I'm going to assume for the sake of argument that you agree with this choice, but you might not so tell me if I'm wrong.
In the same line of arguments you state the following:
1. Using political correctness to cover for bigotry protects people from learning and repeating bigoted thinking
2. People who are covering up their bigotry are pathetically transparent in doing so
If #2 is true, how is #1 going to work? Won't making it shameful to reveal your bigoted thinking simply ensure that you protect it out of fear of shame rather than expose it to external critique with relative safety where you might learn to appreciate just how bigoted you are and enact your proposed solution to this problem: be less bigoted in the first place?
don't get me wrong, i appreciate your attempt at science. i would go as far as to say that yours is a scientifically sound observation. women should not be blamed for reacting to a stimulus when the same isn't applied to men.Different reactions only mean something if the stimuli are the same.
'Seems pretty obvious' is the kind of thing conservative low level thinkers say all of the time. They don't have to think or explain anything, it's just obviously right to them at a gut level. 'You're not one of us so we are going to punish you'. The amazing thing is that you are a primitive and yet you imagine you operate at some vast intellectual level. You project that other people avoid shame because it's what you do. You act in a socially shameful manner insulting people right and left on the pretext it's good to cause them shame. And yet you yourself, do not experience any. Trust me, none you try to shame do either.Seems pretty obvious learning with the mind isn't meant for bigot types, thus the stick approach.
I just look at the case at hand and see an older white guy of privileged status who has never in his life faced a day of real racial or gender discrimination and who has never thus had the first hand experience of knowing what that is like or how he would react to it, or even overcome it himself had he been so exposed, having the arrogance to look at how others react to that prejudice and saying, oh my aren't they emotional. Now be a good beaten dog and don't bite. He lacks a capacity empathy and conceals that fact with a wall or 'reasons'.Literally the entirety of his writing over the last 20-30 years. He's your dad opining about shit he doesn't understand out of his own perception of authority.
I picked up on that too. You are either in box one or box two, when the whole issue is about the unwanted friction the memo caused. It's all about the context not the content.The name 'David Brooks' has very negative associations for me, but for the life of me I can't remember any specifics or what it was in the past that made me take against him. I hate it when that happens.
His article here seems to be just a reworking of the original memo, with a less geeky and more adult prose style. Clearly he's not the type to come up with a 'chart' to over-explain what 'left wing' and 'right wing' mean. But he's not above using straw men (his claim that the other lot all believe the mind is a blank slate).
So easy for flaccid intellectuals to flail about race and bigotry and enlightenment, and not understand the distinction between means and ends.So easy to see why its in degen self-interest to never understand any basic truth inconvenient to their cause. Evolution, so confusing. AGW, too complicated. Bigotry against women/blacks, not even Einstein could figure that shit out.
Seems pretty obvious learning with the mind isn't meant for bigot types, thus the stick approach.
As if there was any other type. Denial is a wonderful defense, especially when if it starts to crack you can rely on projection, projective identification, intellectualization, and reaction formation to squarely keep your own bigotry away.
Well, it's a wonderful cadre of defenses for the person using them to avoid distress, but that person isn't going to be well liked by others.
Good luck with agent but my reply would be that the problem is the controversy the message generated on an official Google channel the company didn't want happening. They want more women in programming and don't want the ones they manage to get who can do the job up to their hiring standards not to apply or to quit because they feel slighted as women constantly are just for being women. It is what I call literal, engineering, linear thinkers, that focus on what he said and not the context in which he said it.So easy for flaccid intellectuals to flail about race and bigotry and enlightenment, and not understand the distinction between means and ends.
Read the memo and lay out your case for why you find it offensive. But that would you require the application of your flaccid intellectualism to something other than flailing about. Far easier to demonize others than actually say something of substance.
Otherwise, we'll just keep deflecting your ineffective magic missiles of DERP.
'Seems pretty obvious' is the kind of thing conservative low level thinkers say all of the time. They don't have to think or explain anything, it's just obviously right to them at a gut level. 'You're not one of us so we are going to punish you'. The amazing thing is that you are a primitive and yet you imagine you operate at some vast intellectual level. You project that other people avoid shame because it's what you do. You act in a socially shameful manner insulting people right and left on the pretext it's good to cause them shame. And yet you yourself, do not experience any. Trust me, none you try to shame do either.
We have all been deeply shamed and it is from that we need to recover. You have chosen to help yourself stay sick.
So easy for flaccid intellectuals to flail about race and bigotry and enlightenment, and not understand the distinction between means and ends.
Read the memo and lay out your case for why you find it offensive. But that would you require the application of your flaccid intellectualism to something other than flailing about. Far easier to demonize others than actually say something of substance.
Otherwise, we'll just keep deflecting your ineffective magic missiles of DERP.
'Seems pretty obvious' is the kind of thing conservative low level thinkers say all of the time. They don't have to think or explain anything, it's just obviously right to them at a gut level. 'You're not one of us so we are going to punish you'. The amazing thing is that you are a primitive and yet you imagine you operate at some vast intellectual level. You project that other people avoid shame because it's what you do. You act in a socially shameful manner insulting people right and left on the pretext it's good to cause them shame. And yet you yourself, do not experience any. Trust me, none you try to shame do either.
We have all been deeply shamed and it is from that we need to recover. You have chosen to help yourself stay sick.
Good luck with agent but my reply would be that the problem is the controversy the message generated on an official Google channel the company didn't want happening. They want more women in programming and don't want the ones they manage to get who can do the job up to their hiring standards not to apply or to quit because they feel slighted as women constantly are just for being women. It is what I call literal, engineering, linear thinkers, that focus on what he said and not the context in which he said it.
Let me put it another way. There is a bigger picture the male brain is especially hardwired to miss. It's left brain linear thinking with less input from the right, holistic thinking, hemisphere, where women outperform men and because the corpus callosum, the nerve bundle that binds the two hemispheres of the brain is thicker in women, they have more input from that side and have a more balanced view of the world. So It's really about time that the folk with the inferiorly developed brains, the lopsided ones, stop judging the people with the superior brain structure, namely women who use the whole thing. Too many men working in programming and the product comes out smelling like Doritos. Ah, that was fun.
So easy for flaccid intellectuals to flail about race and bigotry and enlightenment, and not understand the distinction between means and ends.
Read the memo and lay out your case for why you find it offensive. But that would you require the application of your flaccid intellectualism to something other than flailing about. Far easier to demonize others than actually say something of substance.
Otherwise, we'll just keep deflecting your ineffective magic missiles of DERP.
As if there was any other type. Denial is a wonderful defense, especially when if it starts to crack you can rely on projection, projective identification, intellectualization, and reaction formation to squarely keep your own bigotry away.
Well, it's a wonderful cadre of defenses for the person using them to avoid distress, but that person isn't going to be well liked by others.
don't get me wrong, i appreciate your attempt at science. i would go as far as to say that yours is a scientifically sound observation. women should not be blamed for reacting to a stimulus when the same isn't applied to men.
so i should be allowed to knock days off work when i wake up too drunk from binging the night before because hey, i'm a man; but the same does not apply to women because women aren't subject to the social pressure of having to prove their manhood by drinking shots of 180-proff cold pressed absynthe.
except that the object of the "experiment" is to have ALL suubject involved perform identically.
the memo originated because of google's very-broad-spectrum integration practices. you could almost call it box ticking. again the memo points out that a group of type A employees and a group of type B employees will not code software with the same efficiency if there are atavic differences between the two groups based on characteristics which, in one case but not the other, tend to influence software coding.
i'm not asking you to do basic observation, such as say, "women like dolls and men like toy cars", but rather to consider the maths behind the memo.
you should understand that in a case as blatant as this, it's easy for one to take sides, and i'd rather side with the memo (because there are science reasons why it exists) than google (whose reasons are purely political). otherwise, i'd be happy to discuss how the vast majority of characterial traits of men and women are sociological rather than inherent. what i am not prepared to do is to ignore the fact that women get pregnant, store fat more easily, menstruate, have inferior muscular structure, are smaller, and in no sane mind, if left alone and naked in a hostile environment, would a group of humans decide that the smaller women should go hunting and the bigger men stay at home. social traits exist for a reason, and that reason is genetic.
yeah like, we totally didn't decide that "women and children first" was thing because you know, preservation of the species. no, we were all playing bingo one day and decided it would be funny if to have women be protected and men instead die because they are expendable.
No, it really is trivial to see that degens aren't the brain learning type. So easy that even you've remarked about it a number of times, and exactly why they're the perfect marks for your or trump's proselytizing:
That conservatives rationalize reality and create alternate facts more than liberals do is a scientifically demonstrated fact. That does not mean that liberals never do that, nor does it mean that gives you the right to hold that behavior in contempt. They are either genetically more prone to do that, a notion I completely reject, or they acquired that trait as a part of how they were raised. In either case, no blame for having that characteristic is warranted. The aim should be to understand how to fix it and as I have told you again and again, shaming them does nothing. They do not feel shame, just like you who continues to shamelessly blame. The person that mostly damages is you. The point is that I don't think you think you are stupid but you have all the same characteristics of those you claim are. Either you are wrong about yourself being smart or about them being stupid. Intelligence is put in the service of rationalization among those who rationalize. People rationalize when the truth would damage some notion to which they have pinned their sense of ego self worth. You are making a head on assault of an impregnable defense. You will get nowhere. All it is for you is ego gratification. You have justified in your mind a useless strategy because you have emotional needs to get even for things you don't even remember that were triggered by things that you do remember. You're tilting at windmills.
You still haven't read the memo. The only person failed by education in this thread is you.I'm pretty sure you've read what's been said, but just can't help resorting to the usual degen playing dumb strategy same as buckshot & co. Better luck with the co-morons who'll forever try to "educate" that type, despite zero success in the history of teaching conservatives anything against their interests to learn.
You still haven't read the memo. The only person failed by education in this thread is you.
And there you go waving your magic wand about turning Moonbeam into a manic depressive rabbit all by waving it about. Sorry if I can't play along, but to my mind your capacities at psychological observation are extremely weak.Comical yet perfectly understandable sermons from the guy whose pet religious outlook is entirely extrapolated from bipolar manic depression caused by childhood trauma.
Seems obvious enough that I'm hardly trying to educate degenerates as liberals have forever failed to do. Rather it's more effective to manage their self-interests, same as you & trump do though in the opposite direction.
We have no evidence to indicate you are qualified to judge buckshot or anybody else. We have no evidence of an intent to protect anybody. All we have is your magic wand that says. I am a conservative who knows the truth by the fact I can feel in in my gut. Turn around isn't fair play if you condemn the thing you intend to mimic while claiming it OK when you do the same thing.I wouldn't say you're dumber than buckshot and he certainly knew how this game of protecting your fellow gender/race realists worked.
And there you go waving your magic wand about turning Moonbeam into a manic depressive rabbit all by waving it about. Sorry if I can't play along, but to my mind your capacities at psychological observation are extremely weak.
Your assertion that what you do is more efficient is just another magic trick you claim. And the opposites you observe are a product of dualistic thinking, all of which disappear at a higher level of understanding, one you do not possess. You are what you wish to marginalize. You are struggling to be the best at a game nobody should play. But I understand why you wish to continue to be stock raving mad. It's OK with me. I don't have your need to effectively manage degenerates. I don't blame you for being one. As long as you are blind you can't see. I am dedicated to helping you but I don't need you to respond sensibly. I understand why you can't, how you're not to blame, how you are a mechanical device that walks in its sleep. I have a garden, you see, and it fills me with satisfaction. I am only here to offer you one. So crap away if you like. It's good for my roses. They are at home in thorns.
We have no evidence to indicate you are qualified to judge buckshot or anybody else. We have no evidence of an intent to protect anybody. All we have is your magic wand that says. I am a conservative who knows the truth by the fact I can feel in in my gut. Turn around isn't fair play if you condemn the thing you intend to mimic while claiming it OK when you do the same thing.
Did you ever get back to fix your shameful grammatical mistake, or were you just hoping nobody else noticed. I haven't checked back in a while, but normally not a single criticism that anybody has of you goes unanswered. Am I to assume that if you don't have sufficient intelligence to use proper grammar you don't have the intelligence to gin up some excuse for your mistake? While you deserve pity, I think I will give you what you serve, namely posts that are petty.No, it's just simple observed fact you exhibit all the DSM signs of bi-polar depression, in particular what's commonly termed a messiah complex; and your pet crackpot is literally your own admitted childhood trauma extrapolated to anything and everything.
See, through the power of empirical science we're able to make accurate future predictions, for example you will continue to carry any amount of water necessary for degenerates until you see better opportunity elsewhere to spread the word. Same as we might expect trump to move on from that race/gender realist crowd once he's gotten his worth, same as he did from the democrats.
It's pretty easy to see what buckshot was doing, certainly not biology, same as starbuck and you. Where people usually falter is assuming less than principled people act out of principle instead of their transparent self-interest.
Did you ever get back to fix your shameful grammatical mistake, or were you just hoping nobody else noticed. I haven't checked back in a while, but normally not a single criticism that anybody has of you goes unanswered. Am I to assume that if you don't have sufficient intelligence to use proper grammar you don't have the intelligence to gin up some excuse for your mistake? While you deserve pity, I think I will give you what you serve, namely posts that are petty.