Sorry, can you lay out the steps from A - > Z on those? I'm not following your train of thought at all here.
Probably better than Amused vs Realibad.
Bonus: Gervais on racist pugs and why they're funny.
Sorry, why do you say the google guy's position was backed by science?I'm not sure where to help you.
I gave an example where scientific reaserch was called sexist hate speech. I then asked if science would have to conform to societies view on what is right and wrong. I then gave examples as to a future where things are prohibited, as well an a part example.
What are you not following. You need to put your big boy pants on and explain yourself.
Until you largely disarm the police. Then their whining is plain and pathetic.The paradox of tolerance, how to piss on someones leg and force them to say it's raining.
The mental gymnastics of thought control are fascinating, and while the belief that you fight stupid with stupid actually has some merit, it almost never ends well.
All of these ideas are based on threat of force, and the actual delivery of that force, or what the deplorable's would call "the police state". Another idea that has merit, as long as you're on the policing side of things.
Sorry, why do you say the google guy's position was backed by science?
Everything I read of his reasoning was, at best, incomplete and strongly biased by the sharpshooter fallacy.
So your starting point is flawed, which is why I can't reach the same absurd conclusion as you. I'm hoping you have other examples to work from, or this is just some hyperbolic flight of fear.
Sorry, why do you say the google guy's position was backed by science?
Everything I read of his reasoning was, at best, incomplete and strongly biased by the sharpshooter fallacy.
So your starting point is flawed, which is why I can't reach the same absurd conclusion as you. I'm hoping you have other examples to work from, or this is just some hyperbolic flight of fear.
A Google employee recently shared a memo that referenced some of my scholarly research on psychological sex differences (e.g., personality traits, mate preferences, status-seeking). Alongside other evidence, the employee argued, in part, that this research indicates affirmative action policies based on biological sex are misguided. Maybe, maybe not. Let me explain.
I think it’s really important to discuss this topic scientifically, keeping an open mind and using informed skepticism when evaluating claims about evidence. In the case of personality traits, evidence that men and women may have different average levels of certain traits is rather strong. For instance, sex differences in negative emotionality are universal across cultures; developmentally emerge across all cultures at exactly the same time; are linked to diagnosed (not just self-reported) mental health issues; appear rooted in sex differences in neurology, gene activation, and hormones; are larger in more gender egalitarian nations; and so forth (for a short review of this evidence, see here.)
But it is not clear to me how such sex differences are relevant to the Google workplace. And even if sex differences in negative emotionality were relevant to occupational performance (e.g., not being able to handle stressful assignments), the size of these negative emotion sex differences is not very large (typically, ranging between “small” to “moderate” in statistical effect size terminology; accounting for less than 10% of the variance). So, using someone’s biological sex to essentialize an entire group of people’s personality would be like operating with an axe. Not precise enough to do much good, probably will cause a lot of harm. Moreover, men are more emotional than women in certain ways, too. Sex differences in emotion depend on the type of emotion, how it is measured, where it is expressed, when it is expressed, and lots of other contextual factors.
Thank you.Yep. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
Did you read anything that was in disagreement from a scientist or just journalists? Look around and see if you can find a scientist or researcher that disagrees with something specifically in that memo.
My point is flawed because you said you did not find anything. So now that I have provided you with that information, does it make my point not flawed...?
Also, as for Spy's claim that the authors of the studies disagreed, that is wrong as far as I can tell. In the link I posted above is a comment from David Schmitt about the data used from his research.
But yeah, backed up by people in the field of study. Does not mean its 100% right, but if this were labeled as hate speech, then we are denying scientific study.
Thank you.
So now explain how the science is labeled as hate speech.
From the look of it, people with an agenda will take scientific study and always interpret data to suit their goals. It's why I called out the sharpshooter fallacy.
The very quote you posted explains how data that's misused is likely to cause harm.
So when I saw the memo that circulated last week, I once again felt that pain, and empathized with the pain it must have caused others. I thought about the women at Google who are now facing a very public discussion about their abilities, sparked by one of their own co-workers. I thought about the women throughout the tech field who are already dealing with the implicit biases that haunt our industry (which I’ve written about before), now confronting them explicitly. I thought about how the gender gap persists in tech despite declining in other STEM fields, how hard we’ve been working as an industry to reverse that trend, and how this was yet another discouraging signal to young women who aspire to study computer science. And as my child asked me the question I’d long sought to overcome in my own life, I thought about how tragic it was that this unfounded bias was now being exposed to a new generation.
So, in light of the Nazi Youtube god (not gonna correct ... apparently I'm dyslexic and it's funny) discussion, this thread should be bumped. Because at the heart of that matter, is this matter.
Something Europe grasped long before the US is the paradox of tolerance. Thus the one thing they do not tolerate is intolerance in what has been a fairly successful campaign to maintain tolerance in countries with long histories of sliding in and out of intolerant states. The last and final straw being Nazi Germany.
Europe hasn't grasped anything as Yugoslavia proved having the powers that be hold the lid on the pot only works for so long and eventually it explodes, better to put out the underlying fires and causes of intolerance instead of hiding and suppressing it like dirt swept under the carpet.
Nazi Germany didn't arise because of hate speech it rose because of hopelessness and despair (today known as clinging to their guns and religion) from a poor economy that the Nazi's took advantage of and used hate speech against their scapegoats for their economic ills. .
Suppressing speech never has and never will work whether it comes from the Church or State, only an education not beholden to "profit only matters" mentality or extremist religious dogma as well as a robust economy were all can participate and enjoy the fruits thereof is the best defense against extremists and the intolerant.
I guess it's just hopeless... unless... you should probably devote all your efforts to saving science from the scourge of political correctness, or however you perceive this onslaught, lest we all be headed for total ruin.
Only you can save us. It's very clear now.
Alternately, you're bad at how you reach conclusions. The article you found with some support for the memo doesn't just magically imbue the memo with "science fact".
Damore isn't some pariah.
Hey, I was able to find a scientist that doesn't think the memo is good for much at all! A scientist!
http://observer.com/2017/08/a-scien...t-women-diversity-in-google-memo-jame-damore/
Your response is strange. I said that if we create a system where the "tolerant" get to suppress the speech of the "intolerant" that it creates a tool that could be abused depending on the person in power. You ask for an example and I give you the google memo and how science backs up his claims and how those claims are seen as hateful. Now you are saying that I'm fighting to stop the onslaught of political correctness against science because of a hypothetical? This is all hinging around the idea someone else gave about suppressing speech and I said we should not because if we did bad people could do bad things.
So why did you shift?
Nazi Germany happened not just because of Economic conditions. it happened because of Scapegoating and Propaganda. That's why Germany bans that "Speech".
The Scientific Studies provide Data, the usage in that case was just an agenda driven interpretation of it.
Why did they need a scapegoat though?
Imagine one of the most powerful countries in the world suddenly having the economy of a 3rd world country in a matter of a few years.
From the perspective of the people, they thought they were still winning WWI. The government up until the end was telling people that all was well during the war, so when it ended it was a shock. How could they go from winning the war to suddenly losing and being economically ruined. Not only did Germany have to pay back huge amounts of money, but their main ability to make money through trade was cut because of tariffs. Any country that goes from the top to the bottom that quickly and was telling its people all is fine is going to have a lot of pissed off people. What allowed the propaganda to spread was the conditions. Make no mistake, Hitler tapped into anger and hatred because of the horrible conditions. If you think that you could have stopped the Nazis by banning them from blaming the Jews then you do not understand history.
"Need"? It was simply Politically Expedient. There was no need for it to solve Germany's issues.
You keep saying that science backs up his claims, and that remains incorrect. Repetition doesn't forge something into a fact.Your response is strange. I said that if we create a system where the "tolerant" get to suppress the speech of the "intolerant" that it creates a tool that could be abused depending on the person in power. You ask for an example and I give you the google memo and how science backs up his claims and how those claims are seen as hateful. Now you are saying that I'm fighting to stop the onslaught of political correctness against science because of a hypothetical? This is all hinging around the idea someone else gave about suppressing speech and I said we should not because if we did bad people could do bad things.
So why did you shift?
They needed it to make themselves feel there was a solution. Its called hope and many people will seek it when things are not going well.
Again though, hate speech is not the only thing Hitler used. He tapped into peoples feelings and told them that their misfortune was not their fault, but, that of another group. There were people trying to speak against Hitler, which is why Hitler stopped that speech. Free speech may promote bad ideas quickly, but it also ends them quickly as well. Its when freedom of speech is lost that those bad ideas stick around.
You keep saying that science backs up his claims, and that remains incorrect. Repetition doesn't forge something into a fact.
No, they didn't. What they needed was Public Spending, which is something Hitler did and was his best work.
At first Germany tried to recover from the war by way of social spending. Germany began creating transportation projects, modernization of power plants and gas works. These were all used to battle the increasing unemployment rate. Social spending was rising at an unbelievable rate. In 1913 the government was spending approximately 20.5 per resident; by 1925 it had risen to almost 65 marks per resident and finally in 1929 it reached over one hundred marks per resident. The elevating amounts of money which were used for social spending combined with plummeting revenues caused continuing deficits. Eventually the municipal finance collapsed in 1930.
So you didn't read my link.What? Are you saying that you now want specific studies that back up the claims? I figured scientists in the field saying he was right would be enough, but if you want the wall of studies that I have posted before about bimodal distributions of traits between men and women I can.
What claims do you think are in disagreement with the data?