Board 8 > This is how political correctness dies

(+) Yeah! (+)

HashtagSEP posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

and this elitist attitude is what I believe keeps conservatives from opening up and wanting to work with liberals.

Really. You think this is why.

Mainly I think it's why Trump won. The left--with Hillary as their figurehead--loves to throw around labels like racist, misogynist, etc., and has this attitude that if you don't agree with our progressive ideals, you have nothing of value to say. No one likes to be on the other end of that, and I think that's why so many Republicans came out and voted.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

and this elitist attitude is what I believe keeps conservatives from opening up and wanting to work with liberals.

Really. You think this is why.

Mainly I think it's why Trump won. The left--with Hillary as their figurehead--loves to throw around labels like racist, misogynist, etc., and has this attitude that if you don't agree with our progressive ideals, you have nothing of value to say. No one likes to be on the other end of that, and I think that's why so many Republicans came out and voted.

That much is likely true, yes.

But it's certainly not why conservatives in office are refusing to work with liberals.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

and this elitist attitude is what I believe keeps conservatives from opening up and wanting to work with liberals.

Really. You think this is why.

Mainly I think it's why Trump won. The left--with Hillary as their figurehead--loves to throw around labels like racist, misogynist, etc., and has this attitude that if you don't agree with our progressive ideals, you have nothing of value to say. No one likes to be on the other end of that, and I think that's why so many Republicans came out and voted.

That much is likely true, yes.

But it's certainly not why conservatives in office are refusing to work with liberals.

Oh I don't disagree there. Congress has been fucked since the 90s at least.
---

There's a reason those labels started getting thrown out in the first place.
---

I just want to point out that saying "Happy Holidays" is the least politically correct thing you could possibly say. It actually implies that you don't care about what specific holiday an individual culturally identifies. When you say, "Happy Holidays!" you are actually saying, "I don't care about your personal beliefs. Enjoy whatever pagan deity you worship; I can't be bothered to learn which one matters to you."

THAT is how political correctness dies. With "Happy Holidays."
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

and this elitist attitude is what I believe keeps conservatives from opening up and wanting to work with liberals.

Really. You think this is why.

Mainly I think it's why Trump won. The left--with Hillary as their figurehead--loves to throw around labels like racist, misogynist, etc., and has this attitude that if you don't agree with our progressive ideals, you have nothing of value to say. No one likes to be on the other end of that, and I think that's why so many Republicans came out and voted.

You'd do well to read the essay linked in the second note of that original essay.

"No one likes to be on the other side of that" and you ignore how no one likes to be told that by virtue of things that are explicitly outside of their control, they are to be viewed as lesser beings. Not all ideas are created equally.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Here are valid criticisms that should be addressed, regardless of whatever biotruths may or may not be true or racist or sexist or whatever:

" Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]"

---

Peace___Frog posted...

"No one likes to be on the other side of that" and you ignore how no one likes to be told that by virtue of things that are explicitly outside of their control, they are to be viewed as lesser beings. Not all ideas are created equally.

Using stereotypes is risky. I agree it's not fair to make assumptions about a person for something outside of their control, but I think it's okay to be aware of broad differences. No one adheres 100% to a stereotype, but averages converge upon the stereotype. Like I don't assume that a given Asian person is good at Tetris, but overall Asians kick white peoples' asses at Tetris. Black people tend to be are awesome at basketball, but it's a mistake to assume that Stanley from the Office is too.

One area less controversial that people can actual study without offending too many people, is generational differences. The year you were born is outside of your control, and it sucks when someone assume you have no attention span because you're a Millenial. No one fits the stereotype completely, but you can apply the stereotype to the whole (and I don't view Millenial as a bad thing either). Workplaces are studying the differences and using them to attract and retain young employees.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I just want to point out that saying "Happy Holidays" is the least politically correct thing you could possibly say. It actually implies that you don't care about what specific holiday an individual culturally identifies. When you say, "Happy Holidays!" you are actually saying, "I don't care about your personal beliefs. Enjoy whatever pagan deity you worship; I can't be bothered to learn which one matters to you."

THAT is how political correctness dies. With "Happy Holidays."

Happy Feast of Winter Veil, Champion!
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

I just want to point out that saying "Happy Holidays" is the least politically correct thing you could possibly say. It actually implies that you don't care about what specific holiday an individual culturally identifies. When you say, "Happy Holidays!" you are actually saying, "I don't care about your personal beliefs. Enjoy whatever pagan deity you worship; I can't be bothered to learn which one matters to you."

THAT is how political correctness dies. With "Happy Holidays."

To be fair, I don't think the idea behind "Happy Holidays" is that you'll be using it with people that you are close enough with to actually know what they celebrate. The point of "Happy Holidays" was for situations like retail workers who aren't going to sit there and ask their customers what they celebrate, and thus can just kinda give an all encompassing greeting/whatever.

Now whether you agree with that needing to be a thing is another discussion.
---

fun fact, childless millennial women outearn men in every major city in the usa. The same thing happened when gen xers were in their 20s and 30s.

The "wage gap" statistics just prove 1 thing. Men chase money longer than women do.

The number 1 thing that causes the "women only make 77% of the income men make" is due to the fact that most women tend to date/marry men who are older than them, which usually means more established.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/#200d1c03a82c
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/09/genevieve-wood/what-pay-gap-young-women-out-earn-men-cities-gop-p/
http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

The real thing isnt so much "can women be good coders" or some crap like that. The question that should be asked, do men need a career more than women to be happy in western society, and is that what is causing men to go into coding, because its a grueling task but pays well.

Because fun fact, places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and India have more women in stem than men, and last time i checked its Sweden that is praised for being some gender fluid utopia and not them.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2015/12/09/set-to-take-over-tech-70-of-irans-science-and-engineering-students-are-women/#11402d5a44de
---

okay, i'll bite the bait

i agree with most of the spirit of what he said. He has committed some errors, which I will tackle in the order that I see them written. First, I don't like that he labels pragmatism as a right-wing trait.

i would argue that intentionally choosing the option that sounds shittier JUST BECAUSE it *sounds* like "the difficult choice" is just as idealistic, just an idealism of a different philosophy. sometimes, the shittier choice is just shittier, not pragmatic. But that's just word choice

i also think trying to create analogies and apply social and political perspectives to the day to day functioning of a business is the corporate equivalent of astrology and inherently worthless

the entire section about the 'on average' differences between men and women has a LOT of [sources needed]

for example, claiming "women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things" as if it were a fact is just random. if there's no source backing this up, this carries as much weight as the comedy sketch that says "women are interested in things, and men are interested in women, and therefore men only buy things to attract women". It's kind of the opposite, too!

That being said, nobody's expecting this guy to be perfectly correct in everything. He wants to have a conversation and he should get it. Hopefully he is aware and open to accepting that he is wrong on many counts.

I'll be honest with you. It's really tough to see two "sides" of an argument, where one side is 90% correct and the other side is 10% correct, and the 10% side has retreated to basically say "i'm not free to be wrong, people get mad at me when i don't listen to reason". It's also tough when the fringe crazies ON THE MOSTLY CORRECT SIDE go overzealously overboard.

I do totally understand the fear, but it's not a liberal vs. conservative thing, and I hate it when people try to draw that line and put people into color coded buckets.

I have absolutely been in situations where I've felt like it would be unwise to contribute to a discussion because of the social environment. You just need to slow down and actually formulate intelligent positions before blabbing. Yeah, it's tough, but everyone has to deal with it sometimes.

Also, it's an idiotic lie ot say that political correctness is a tool of "the Left" (god i hate painting with broad strokes) exclusively. I see "anxious whites" rant and rave about how people are "attacking" whites verbally and they need to stop. It's complete hypocrisy

like i get it. the left feels more passionate and intolerant. this is because they are actually closer to being correct on a lot of issues, including evolution, climate change, drug wars, health care, and economics. yeah, people are going to be passionate about these topics

it's easy to feel on the defensive when you're factually wrong on so many counts, and it bleeds into other topics that are more nuanced and less fact-based, like race & gender
---

parties whip up their base with ignorant catch phrases and then act offended when they're called out on it

unfortunately, passionate rhetoric (as opposed to rational discussions) have been factually proven to be more effective


btw, vlado as annoying as your tone always is this was a good link. i haven't read your actual posts inside of this topic, which was probably a good decision
---

also, call me ignorant, but wasn't it determined that the pay gap was real, but the wage gap wasn't?

that men take less time off and therefore earn more or some shit
---

banananor posted...

okay, i'll bite the bait

i agree with most of the spirit of what he said. He has committed some errors, which I will tackle in the order that I see them written. First, I don't like that he labels pragmatism as a right-wing trait.

i would argue that intentionally choosing the option that sounds shittier JUST BECAUSE it *sounds* like "the difficult choice" is just as idealistic, just an idealism of a different philosophy. sometimes, the shittier choice is just shittier, not pragmatic. But that's just word choice

i also think trying to create analogies and apply social and political perspectives to the day to day functioning of a business is the corporate equivalent of astrology and inherently worthless

the entire section about the 'on average' differences between men and women has a LOT of [sources needed]

for example, claiming "women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things" as if it were a fact is just random. if there's no source backing this up, this carries as much weight as the comedy sketch that says "women are interested in things, and men are interested in women, and therefore men only buy things to attract women". It's kind of the opposite, too!

That being said, nobody's expecting this guy to be perfectly correct in everything. He wants to have a conversation and he should get it. Hopefully he is aware and open to accepting that he is wrong on many counts.

I'll be honest with you. It's really tough to see two "sides" of an argument, where one side is 90% correct and the other side is 10% correct, and the 10% side has retreated to basically say "i'm not free to be wrong, people get mad at me when i don't listen to reason". It's also tough when the fringe crazies ON THE MOSTLY CORRECT SIDE go overzealously overboard.

I do totally understand the fear, but it's not a liberal vs. conservative thing, and I hate it when people try to draw that line and put people into color coded buckets.

I have absolutely been in situations where I've felt like it would be unwise to contribute to a discussion because of the social environment. You just need to slow down and actually formulate intelligent positions before blabbing. Yeah, it's tough, but everyone has to deal with it sometimes.

Also, it's an idiotic lie ot say that political correctness is a tool of "the Left" (god i hate painting with broad strokes) exclusively. I see "anxious whites" rant and rave about how people are "attacking" whites verbally and they need to stop. It's complete hypocrisy

like i get it. the left feels more passionate and intolerant. this is because they are actually closer to being correct on a lot of issues, including evolution, climate change, drug wars, health care, and economics. yeah, people are going to be passionate about these topics

it's easy to feel on the defensive when you're factually wrong on so many counts, and it bleeds into other topics that are more nuanced and less fact-based, like race & gender

What is his actual primary complaint? Can you phrase his primary complaint in a way that he would consider fair? Because it sounds like you don't mention it at all here. Here's a hint: it's not that he thinks he's being silenced.
---

banananor posted...

for example, claiming "women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things" as if it were a fact is just random. if there's no source backing this up, this carries as much weight as the comedy sketch that says "women are interested in things, and men are interested in women, and therefore men only buy things to attract women". It's kind of the opposite, too!

There is some sources for this. Baby boys are more likely to stare at objects in motion, baby girls are more likely to stare at faces.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/08/20/parenting.gender/index.html

"According to psychologists at the University of Cambridge in England, boys prefer to watch mechanical motion over human motion. When they gave 12-month-old boys the choice of looking at people talking or windshield wipers moving, you can guess which the tots picked. And it turns out that baby boys are more adept at keeping track of moving objects. Recent research shows that boys are about two months ahead of girls when it comes to figuring out the laws of motion (that if you roll a ball under a couch, say, it will take a few seconds to pop out on the other side)."

" Girls are more likely to establish and maintain eye contact, and are attracted to individual faces -- especially women's. They're also more skilled at reading emotional expressions; if shown a frightening face, for example, they'll look at Mom or get distressed, but they'll be fine if they see a happy one. Boys take longer to notice the difference, according to a meta-analysis of 26 studies on kids' capacity to recognize facial expressions."

Again, i dont think this really makes anything 100% conclusive, but there is some evidence for the "boys like objects more, women like people more" thing. It also kinda fits in with hunter gatherer roots, which was like 190,000 years of the ~200,000 years of human evolution if that matters.
---

Metal_DK posted...

banananor posted...

for example, claiming "women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things" as if it were a fact is just random. if there's no source backing this up, this carries as much weight as the comedy sketch that says "women are interested in things, and men are interested in women, and therefore men only buy things to attract women". It's kind of the opposite, too!

There is some sources for this. Baby boys are more likely to stare at objects in motion, baby girls are more likely to stare at faces.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/08/20/parenting.gender/index.html

"According to psychologists at the University of Cambridge in England, boys prefer to watch mechanical motion over human motion. When they gave 12-month-old boys the choice of looking at people talking or windshield wipers moving, you can guess which the tots picked. And it turns out that baby boys are more adept at keeping track of moving objects. Recent research shows that boys are about two months ahead of girls when it comes to figuring out the laws of motion (that if you roll a ball under a couch, say, it will take a few seconds to pop out on the other side)."

" Girls are more likely to establish and maintain eye contact, and are attracted to individual faces -- especially women's. They're also more skilled at reading emotional expressions; if shown a frightening face, for example, they'll look at Mom or get distressed, but they'll be fine if they see a happy one. Boys take longer to notice the difference, according to a meta-analysis of 26 studies on kids' capacity to recognize facial expressions."

Again, i dont think this really makes anything 100% conclusive, but there is some evidence for the "boys like objects more, women like people more" thing. It also kinda fits in with hunter gatherer roots, which was like 190,000 years of the ~200,000 years of human evolution if that matters.

Nope, it's sexist to assume that men and women would have sexually-dimorphic nervous systems even though they have sexually-dimorphic skeletal, muscular, and endocrine systems. None of those adaptations would've led to the sexes specializing in certain areas of cognition, that's crazy talk.
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

What is his actual primary complaint? Can you phrase his primary complaint in a way that he would consider fair? Because it sounds like you don't mention it at all here. Here's a hint: it's not that he thinks he's being silenced.

i'd be more interested to hear how you would phrase it, actually. i'm totally open to hearing that i completely missed every relevant point
---

WhoopsyDaisy posted...

Nope, it's sexist to assume that men and women would have sexually-dimorphic nervous systems even though they have sexually-dimorphic skeletal, muscular, and endocrine systems. None of those adaptations would've led to the sexes specializing in certain areas of cognition, that's crazy talk.

there are differences. full stop.

it's just a bit silly for him to claim he knows exactly what they are
---

Also he totally fails to back up his claim that these differences are hurting Google as a business
---

Political correctness died when it became defined as "what the president of the United States disagrees with"
---

Peridiam posted...

I also think he should've cited sources to backup his points,

for reference, the pastebin isn't the full thing.
it's missing sources and charts that he had which were removed when it got leaked online.

which are pretty important things to be missing.
---

Wanglicious posted...

which are pretty important things to be missing.

Why? It was convincing enough for you and vlado etc
---

Wanglicious posted...

Peridiam posted...

I also think he should've cited sources to backup his points,

for reference, the pastebin isn't the full thing.
it's missing sources and charts that he had which were removed when it got leaked online.

which are pretty important things to be missing.

Then perhaps he's a shitty worker, putting that together on company time.
---

Jeez, he wrote a manifesto AND did a bunch of research?

Dude must really hate not being able to be casually sexist at the office
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Kanzaris seems just as biased if not more than Vlado

There's huge inflated biases on both sides. It's really tiresome.
---

banananor posted...

for example, claiming "women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things" as if it were a fact is just random. i

there's probably some sources he had in there but the biggest truth in this comes from looking at jobs. the more free and open a society is, the more you see women go into fields about people and men go into fields about things. from the 2010 census, women made up...

91.1% registered nurses
81.8% elementary and middle school teachers
80.8% social workers
78.8% meeting and convention planners
72.5% medical and health services managers
71.2% counselors
71.1% tax preparers
70.2% social and community managers
69.3% HR managers
66.7% psychologists

...i mean i can keep going here as it goes down to 56% but a lot of these positions are ones about people. here: https://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/qs-womenwork2010.htm


you can see similar results happen in any first world country too, it's not unique to the US. the only time you see parity occur is in places where there isn't any real choice to get ahead. though like the guy does say, bear in mind that these are just aggregate totals and stats, not an individual's capabilities.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Jeez, he wrote a manifesto AND did a bunch of research?

he was a biology major and was in Harvard's PhD program. not sure if he got it or not, that bit's unclear. but he did get a BS in molecular biology, chemistry, and had internships in Princeton and Havard alike.

so if we're talking about biological differences, it's kind of his thing.
---

https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/a_funny_thing_happened_on_the_way_to_gender_equality_in_norway/15213

"An interesting finding to emerge from some of the research is that in developing countries women are more likely than their Western counterparts to choose jobs in the typically male field of technology because these jobs are better paid and offer better career opportunities. In the highly developed democratic countries, however, women are freer to choose what they typically prefer: work involving face to face dealings with people."

I think the main thing people dont understand is if you try to control the social constructs because they are "oppressive", isn't the only thing left biological factors? I mean is there a third thing in the nature v nuture debate?
---

Wanglicious posted...

so if we're talking about biological differences, it's kind of his thing.

If there was someone with better qualifications you would listen to them on this topic?
---

With thunderous applause.
---

banananor posted...

First, I don't like that he labels pragmatism as a right-wing trait.

I don't like that he labels idealism a left-wing trait. It's a right-wing trait. Unless striving to cull down everyone to worthless mediocrity is somehow idealistic.

The left's end goal - whether they realise it or not - is to erase peoples, cultures and races and turn everyone into a grey, materialistic mass of worthless sheep. To dehumanise humans and turn them into cattle.

The right's end goal is to advance humanity, to make way for the best and brightest, so that we can eventually explore and colonise the stars.

You decide which of the two is idealistic...

banananor posted...

I'll be honest with you. It's really tough to see two "sides" of an argument, where one side is 90% correct and the other side is 10% correct, and the 10% side has retreated to basically say "i'm not free to be wrong, people get mad at me when i don't listen to reason". It's also tough when the fringe crazies ON THE MOSTLY CORRECT SIDE go overzealously overboard.

That's the thing. The left is WRONG on most things. I was stupid before and believed in some of that nonsense, too, then I started reading more and realised my mistake.

banananor posted...

Also, it's an idiotic lie ot say that political correctness is a tool of "the Left" (god i hate painting with broad strokes) exclusively. I see "anxious whites" rant and rave about how people are "attacking" whites verbally and they need to stop. It's complete hypocrisy

One is people complaining that doesn't do any damage to anyone, the other ruins careers and lives, and worst of all, leads to self-censorship, which is an Orwellian nightmare. Self-censorship is the worst thing that can happen to humanity.

It's pretty obvious which one is worse.

banananor posted...

like i get it. the left feels more passionate and intolerant. this is because they are actually closer to being correct on a lot of issues, including evolution, climate change, drug wars, health care, and economics. yeah, people are going to be passionate about these topics

That's a rather ignorant thing to say. First, the right doesn't have a united stance on most of these. Second, the left is WRONG on most/all of these issues, and saying "economics" is particularly laughable, as socialism and communism have failed or are in the process of failing spectacularly everywhere they've been implemented. Now, capitalism is pretty awful, too, but it's evidently less of a failure. Capitalism can work better if corporations are kept in check and not allowed to grow too much. Or if politicians weren't bought and paid for... But that's the harder thing to ask for.

banananor posted...

it's easy to feel on the defensive when you're factually wrong on so many counts, and it bleeds into other topics that are more nuanced and less fact-based, like race & gender

Seeing as the right is the side that supports its claims with facts, and the left's currency of choice is feelings, that's a rather silly thing to say.
---

The right is literally feels over reals. Newt Gingrich literally went on air and said that. "Crime isn't up, but it FEELS up and that's what matters."
---

"Obamacare is in a death spiral!"
*several experts cite how it's stabilized*
"FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELZ"
---

"There's too many Mexicans cross the border!"
*statistics show border crossings went down and Obama deported record numbers of illegals*
"FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELZ"
---

"Look at all the jobs Trump is creating!"
*job growth actually slower than it was this time last year*
"FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELZ"
---

Nice sources there... Oops, nothing.
---

Which sources do you want me to cite? Because there's literally sources for all of those via google in about five seconds.
---

When he posts the sources then you will acknowledge the argument right?
---

Both sides are terrible at the feels thing, but the left is arguably based more upon feels than any other political party so I'm not entirely sure why Rock's taking this approach, other than to piss you off and make you feel like your enemy.

Feel.
---

Obamacare stabilizing.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/341249-study-obamacare-market-stabilizing-not-collapsing
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/327896-report-obamacare-markets-stabilizing-absent-drastic-changes-to-law
---

MenuWars posted...

Both sides are terrible at the feels thing, but the left is arguably based more upon feels than any other political party so I'm not entirely sure why Rock's taking this approach, other than to piss you off and make you feel like your enemy.

Feel.

Which is why you laugh at both parties and should seek their destruction, but y'know, this is a bit of a revolutionary concept to consider.
---

I really don't get you people's reactions to this stuff.
---

Vlado posted...

Capitalism can work better if corporations are kept in check and not allowed to grow too much

Perhaps one way to do this is with diversity hiring?
---

pjbasis posted...

I really don't get you people's reactions to this stuff.

Because the sad thing is the political climate matters to all our lives and this is what it's currently about.

We still have Flat Earthers for fuck sake.
---

the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).

this is enough to know i don't have to read this article.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

And his "your views are unwelcome because they suck" is what I dislike most about the left,

good thing this isn't emblematic of the left at all, then.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

And his "your views are unwelcome because they suck" is what I dislike most about the left,

good thing this isn't emblematic of the left at all, then.

It is very emblematic of anyone on the extreme of either side of the political spectrum.
---

Solioxrz362 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

And his "your views are unwelcome because they suck" is what I dislike most about the left,

good thing this isn't emblematic of the left at all, then.

It is very emblematic of anyone on the extreme of either side of the political spectrum.

Solio is the hope for our future. Long live the new generation.
---

I don't get why people are so eager to defend "the left" and "the right". I totally understand identifying with one or the other, but WHY is it so important that everyone agrees "your side" is right and just? They will often throw themselves under the bus just to defend "their team". It's so dumb.
---