Google diversity memo

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Yes great. But the current ratio you appear to be defending is 80/20. Can you support that as the right one? Because that seems even more ridiculous on its face.

How does one determine the "right" ratio, exactly?

Quote:

Or 87/13 in the police?

96/4 for firefighters?

How about hairdressers, social workers or teachers?

[Giz]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How does one determine the "right" ratio, exactly?



How about hairdressers, social workers or teachers?

Fire some truck drivers, force them to retrain as child carers. And vice versa.

And stop letting students choose their college majors - they're getting it wrong and perpetuating gender stereotypes. Assign college majors based on diversity targets, not grades or individual interests and ambitions.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Well, there is certainly both a genetic and cultural component. I still don't see the problem. Certain cultural norms will as a matter of course change the distribution of the genders in various fields. Unless there's an actual barrier to entry, however, I don't see the issue.



My point is that you can't correct the inherent unfairness, so it fall into the "if we can" clause.



Yes but we're not talking about change for change's sake, hopefully. That's why we have to establish that the change is reasonably expected to be an improvement.



Yes, I can. I can imagine that you need good reasons to invest in such a monumental project. Those reasons exist, but they may not convince enough people to get it going.

Hey, you still ignored my hunting analogy!

Yeah sorry I did ignore your hunting analogy. To be honest I have no experience of hunting or hunters to talk from. In theory i cant see why hunting should be a male only preserve nowadays. It seems to require no physical strength particularly.

Even genetically hunting to feed your kids seems like a female friendly role. I'm thinking lionesses here.

So it would seem cultural that women don't hunt if they don't. The question then is whether we want to and can change that.

We don't need more hunters, we do need more stem grads.

And beyond that if there was a body of women saying they don't hunt because guys won't let them or act like dicks to them or whatever it might suggest we need to look at it.

But I just don't know much or care much about hunting.

A different example...

50 years ago how many women drove. No doubt you could have assumed then that they just didn't want to and point to genetic differences to justify it.

My problem with guys like the ones who write that memo is that they are seeking justifications for the status quo rather than thinking about what good things could be done. If it's not deliberately obstructive it's at least prematurely defeatist.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Yeah sorry I did ignore your hunting analogy. To be honest I have no experience of hunting or hunters to talk from. In theory i cant see why hunting should be a male only preserve nowadays. It seems to require no physical strength particularly.

That's not the point. It used to depend on strength and endurance quite a bit, and men have more of both by a wide margin. The weapons have improved but the biological drive to hunt has not. The drive and the physical ability are inextricably related. That's why men are overrepresented in this hobby.

Quote:

Even genetically hunting to feed your kids seems like a female friendly role. I'm thinking lionesses here.

Different species, different gender roles. Stick with homo sapiens, please.

Quote:

So it would seem cultural that women don't hunt if they don't.

See above: it's biological.

Quote:

We don't need more hunters, we do need more stem grads.

We do?

Quote:

My problem with guys like the ones who write that memo is that they are seeking justifications for the status quo rather than thinking about what good things could be done.

I think we should review their arguments, not their imagined motivations.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

How does one determine the "right" ratio, exactly?



How about hairdressers, social workers or teachers?

I don't know how you determine the right ratio a priori it seems like you try your best and then see where you end up.

There is a push to get more men into teaching, one I agree with. I don't know what the balance is in social work but yes if it's skewed heavily then we should try to fix it.

I think in teaching you have struck in an area where the opposite argument can and should be made. And is being made.

2 important things though...

1. We want more stem grads. I'm not sure there is a shortage of hairdressers and I'm not sure that hairdressers are key to the future of society. I'd hate to think there are guys who want to hairdress who can't for whatever reason but in my priorities it's down the list

2. It's suspicious' to argue ' hey we are just different. Let's just split the jobs up. We will be scientists engineers and managers. You can be primary teachers hairdressers and beauticians. ' as if somehow that's balanced.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Yes great. But the current ratio you appear to be defending is 80/20. Can you support that as the right one? Because that seems even more ridiculous on its face.

Or 87/13 in the police?

96/4 for firefighters?

Is there any number that would make you see an issue or can we just ignore your input as without reason?

Intentional or not, this is a misrepresentation so I will be as as explicit as possible.

1) I don't know what ratio is best for any given field, though I expect most of the time it is not 50:50
2) I don't know what ratio represents the least amount of discrimination in any given field, though I expect most of the time it is not 50:50
3) Anyone who proposes the ratio needs to be changed needs to justify why their ratio is better, rather than just presuming it is better. I've yet to see someone justify any given ratio beyond "equal outcome = better" based on the presumption that equal opportunity leads to equal outcome, and that therefore an unequal outcome is evidence of unequal opportunity.
4) Without justifying a ratio, mentioned in 3), it is a waste of resources and time to socially engineer in one direction or the other, and presuming that change = good leads to a lot of resentfulness among the population ("women are held back!", "we need more women in STEM", etc.)


I hope it's clear what I'm suggesting, now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

My problem with guys like the ones who write that memo is that they are seeking justifications for the status quo rather than thinking about what good things could be done. If it's not deliberately obstructive it's at least prematurely defeatist.

But that's not true either. The memo author specifically listed actions that could be taken to promote diversity without causing the problems he sees with some of Google's current program. So he was absolutely not arguing for the status quo.

Have you actually read the memo? Because it doesn't seem like you have.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Yeah sorry I did ignore your hunting analogy. To be honest I have no experience of hunting or hunters to talk from. In theory i cant see why hunting should be a male only preserve nowadays. It seems to require no physical strength particularly.

Even genetically hunting to feed your kids seems like a female friendly role. I'm thinking lionesses here.

So it would seem cultural that women don't hunt if they don't. The question then is whether we want to and can change that.

We don't need more hunters, we do need more stem grads.

And beyond that if there was a body of women saying they don't hunt because guys won't let them or act like dicks to them or whatever it might suggest we need to look at it.

But I just don't know much or care much about hunting.

A different example...

50 years ago how many women drove. No doubt you could have assumed then that they just didn't want to and point to genetic differences to justify it.

My problem with guys like the ones who write that memo is that they are seeking justifications for the status quo rather than thinking about what good things could be done. If it's not deliberately obstructive it's at least prematurely defeatist.

Did you read the memo? He was pro-diversity throughout the entire body of the memo and the entire point was to approach the "problem" (something you and all his critics accept IS a problem - lack of women in tech jobs) by using different means, based on a better understanding of men and women's motivations and differences.

edit: looks like I was ninja'd

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

That's not the point. It used to depend on strength and endurance quite a bit, and men have more of both by a wide margin. The weapons have improved but the biological drive to hunt has not. The drive and the physical ability are inextricably related. That's why men are overrepresented in this hobby.



Different species, different gender roles. Stick with homo sapiens, please.



See above: it's biological.



We do?



I think we should review their arguments, not their imagined motivations.

Sorry I did say I know nothing about hunting. I'm not aware that there is a genetic basis for enjoying hunting. Haven't looked into it. I as a man have no interest in hunting. Did I not get that gene? Your argument above hasn't convinced me I have to say.

Yes we do need more stem grads. If you don't agree then fine but the industries who hire them are unanimous and they are the ones that will either act or not act to improve things.

I'm happy to review any arguments that show 80/20 is the right ratio. The memo in question certainly didn't provide one. The focus on averages was a complete red herring as I already did discuss.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Intentional or not, this is a misrepresentation so I will be as as explicit as possible.

1) I don't know what ratio is best for any given field, though I expect most of the time it is not 50:50
2) I don't know what ratio represents the least amount of discrimination in any given field, though I expect most of the time it is not 50:50
3) Anyone who proposes the ratio needs to be changed needs to justify why their ratio is better, rather than just presuming it is better. I've yet to see someone justify any given ratio beyond "equal outcome = better" based on the presumption that equal opportunity leads to equal outcome, and that therefore an unequal outcome is evidence of unequal opportunity.
4) Without justifying a ratio, mentioned in 3), it is a waste of resources and time to socially engineer in one direction or the other, and presuming that change = good leads to a lot of resentfulness among the population ("women are held back!", "we need more women in STEM", etc.)


I hope it's clear what I'm suggesting, now.

If you don't know the right ratio then it's pretty unlikely we arrived at the right one by accident. So unless you can justify that ratio it seems like a pretty obvious answer to a shortage of stem grads to look at why only one in five of them are not men and try to fix that.

Because we need more stem talent. Do you have an alternative solution to getting them?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But that's not true either. The memo author specifically listed actions that could be taken to promote diversity without causing the problems he sees with some of Google's current program. So he was absolutely not arguing for the status quo.

Have you actually read the memo? Because it doesn't seem like you have.

Yes I did read it. Didn't see what you saw.

Can you point me to the specific suggestions you are referring to?

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

If you don't know the right ratio then it's pretty unlikely we arrived at the right one by accident. So unless you can justify that ratio it seems like a pretty obvious answer to a shortage of stem grads to look at why only one in five of them are not men and try to fix that.

Because we need more stem talent. Do you have an alternative solution to getting them?

Well if we don't know if the current ratio is "right" (I agree, we don't) then we have a 50% chance of choosing the wrong direction. Sounds like a big gamble, especially if this means putting resources in just one camp (women only scholarships, quotas, etc.), and especially since the cost for some of these policies is in fact discrimination. Now, you can argue that this is "
good discrimination" but that's only true 50% of the time if we don't know the right direction to head in.

If we need more people in STEM, support more PEOPLE in STEM, not just "women".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

Of course you'll blame your failure to read on me. I just explained to you why your intepretation is nonsense. How about you make a case for said interpretation?

Communication takes cooperation if you do not wish to cooperate that is your prerogative.

[Darat]

Do we yet have Google's actual hiring policies?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by pharphis

Well if we don't know if the current ratio is "right" (I agree, we don't) then we have a 50% chance of choosing the wrong direction. Sounds like a big gamble, especially if this means putting resources in just one camp (women only scholarships, quotas, etc.), and especially since the cost for some of these policies is in fact discrimination. Now, you can argue that this is "
good discrimination" but that's only true 50% of the time if we don't know the right direction to head in.

If we need more people in STEM, support more PEOPLE in STEM, not just "women".

We should support more people in stem but the growth opportunity is in there who don't currently see it as an opportunity. And women is an obvious target group there.

You aren't seriously arguing it's just as likely that we should have FEWER women in stem than more are you? Are you?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Yes I did read it. Didn't see what you saw.

Can you point me to the specific suggestions you are referring to?

Seriously? You read it and you didn't see it? There's a whole section on his suggestions.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/e...lly-at-google/

Look under "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You might disagree with his suggestions, but since he explicitly advocated for trying to reduce the gender gap, your claims to the contrary are obviously and unambiguously wrong.

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Seriously? You read it and you didn't see it? There's a whole section on his suggestions.

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/e...lly-at-google/

Look under "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You might disagree with his suggestions, but since he explicitly advocated for trying to reduce the gender gap, your claims to the contrary are obviously and unambiguously wrong.

No I read that part. It was mostly repetition of the averages nonsense and he explicitly said he didn't advocate social engineering to implement changes which kind of negated the very few non specific and largely unsupported suggestions he made based on his broad stereotyping.

I thought I had missed something substantial. Seems I didn't. Resume business as usual.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I thought I had missed something substantial. Seems I didn't. Resume business as usual.

Read it again.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

No I read that part. It was mostly repetition of the averages nonsense and he explicitly said he didn't advocate social engineering to implement changes which kind of negated the very few non specific and largely unsupported suggestions he made based on his broad stereotyping.

I thought I had missed something substantial. Seems I didn't. Resume business as usual.

Then your posts were worse than I thought. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't know. But you did know. You simply chose to lie about it.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think of his proposals. Hell, you could even be right that his proposals are "nonsense". The point is, he still argued for more diversity. You knew he did, and you lied about it.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, he isn't.

Of course he is.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

If hiring whites over blacks for their skin colour or men over women for their gender is bad, then doing the reverse is bad as well. Makes sense to me.

The point of the diversity initiative is to encourage the conscientious hiring of minorities as a way of artificially compensating for oft-demonstrated discrimination tendencies in hiring processes that don't feature that guidance.

The author's screed attempts to justify a gender gap by claiming that males in general are more drawn to coding jobs than females for reasons X, Y, and Z. That's all well and good, but hiring discrimination in a voluntary application process doesn't come from "general population" gender interest gaps. It's not as if up until this point the tech industry has been hiring every single female coder it could find and has found its workplace gender ratio is still insufficient; minorities who have self-selected as interested, trained, and educated in the career field (meaning considerations about "biological" interest gaps are completely irrelevant) are discriminated against - consciously or unconsciously - during the hiring process. That bias is what the initiatives are trying to compensate for, not general-population trends.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon

No, it's detrimental because the people who are hired may be less suited for the positon.

You are overlooking possibilities in your analysis.

"Possibilities" that don't matter as much as the author asserts they do. There's a "possibility" that an as-yet-undetected extinction-level asteroid is on a collision course with Earth and due tomorrow morning. It would be foolish for any of us to begin acting as if it's true or even likely, though, and change our plans for rest of our evening and tomorrow morning around that risk.

Nothing that "may be" true is factually detrimental until it IS true, and the author fails to demonstrate that truth. He does not demonstrate that substandard employees are in fact being hired for the sake of having more females in the workforce; the context of the paper implies it as a just-so proposition. He also does not demonstrate why the risk of hiring substandard employees is necessarily greater when the hiring process is supplemented by diversity initiatives than it is when there are none.

[Delphic Oracle]

Have we arrived at an ideal gender distribution, yet?

I've seen 60/40 and 55/45 tossed around by a few folks.

Is this the "correct" split? Why or why not?

Yes, I'm being serious. If you don't know what you're aiming for, how do you know when you've arrived?

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

It's not as if up until this point the tech industry has been hiring every single female coder it could find and has found its workplace gender ratio is still insufficient;

Of course not. That would be disastrous!

Quote:

minorities who have self-selected as interested, trained, and educated in the career field (meaning considerations about "biological" interest gaps are completely irrelevant) are discriminated against - consciously or unconsciously - during the hiring process. That bias is what the initiatives are trying to compensate for, not general-population trends.

Why are you so certain that this bias exists?

Quote:

He also does not demonstrate why the risk of hiring substandard employees is necessarily greater when the hiring process is supplemented by diversity initiatives than it is when there are none.

It should be obvious. What if the NBA's draft process, for example, was supplemented by diversity initiatives - do you think it would increase the risk of drafting substandard players?

[Tony]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

Why are you so certain that this bias exists?

The evidence for the bias is the gender gap. And the gender gap is evidence that there is a bias. It's simple logic really.

[pharphis]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

We should support more people in stem but the growth opportunity is in there who don't currently see it as an opportunity. And women is an obvious target group there.

You aren't seriously arguing it's just as likely that we should have FEWER women in stem than more are you? Are you?

Why should I accept the premise that women are kept out of STEM because they don't see it as a potential job opportunity? Have you considered the possibility that they just aren't interested for other reasons? Have you considered that maybe males don't see it as a job opportunity, due to affirmative action?

Also yes I am. That's what I said. But I'm willing to say it probably also isn't exactly 50:50. Maybe it's a 40:60 split in which direction is "optimal". But the whole point is we don't know what is optimal and any policy to enact change is unjustified until it is shown that the change is in the right direction, AND worth the cost of said policy.

[sonofthor]

James Damore Speaks out! Here are too interviews with him. One is with professor Jordan Peterson and the other is with Stefan Molyneux. Regardless of with our not you agree with the interviewer's politics of points of view...these interviews are worth a watch! Give 'em a go!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro


PS I really want to know your opinions about James not Jordan Peterson or Stefan Molyneux ( Although, I think Stefan talked too much and didn't let James go off the cuff).

[pharphis]

I linked the Peterson talk earlier and I just finished it. In the first 15 minutes he explains what actually happened and what his intentions were (some of his claims will likely lead to legal action because he claims google is illegally discriminating in their hiring policies).

In the latter half of the chat, Peterson goes through some of his claims and the evidence for or against it. Overall, he's very accurate about almost everything, with a few less well-supported (but still supported!) claims. Remember, this is was feedback for diversity initiatives, not a PhD thesis.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

I don't know how you determine the right ratio a priori it seems like you try your best and then see where you end up.

If you have no idea, and I have no idea, then how do we go about doing your best?

Quote:

There is a push to get more men into teaching, one I agree with. I don't know what the balance is in social work but yes if it's skewed heavily then we should try to fix it.

Why?

Quote:

2. It's suspicious' to argue ' hey we are just different. Let's just split the jobs up. We will be scientists engineers and managers. You can be primary teachers hairdressers and beauticians. ' as if somehow that's balanced.

How about: "Choose whatever career you want, and wherever the ratio falls will be what it will be."? You can't force people to choose a career.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Tony

The evidence for the bias is the gender gap. And the gender gap is evidence that there is a bias. It's simple logic really.

At first I was going to say circular logic, but you phrased the same statement two ways is all.

/golfclap

The gender gap is potentially evidence for bias. It is also potentially evidence for various other plausible explanations.

You butchered your attempt at "simple" logic and this subject is not going to get solved by simple solutions anyways.

This kind of stuff is more diversity theatre than the real thing, any more. It placates people while the underlying issues go unaddressed.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Originally Posted by sonofthor

James Damore Speaks out! Here are too interviews with him. One is with professor Jordan Peterson and the other is with Stefan Molyneux. Regardless of with our not you agree with the interviewer's politics of points of view...these interviews are worth a watch! Give 'em a go!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agU-mHFcXdw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN1vEfqHGro


PS I really want to know your opinions about James not Jordan Peterson or Stefan Molyneux ( Although, I think Stefan talked too much and didn't let James go off the cuff).

I'm listening to the Jordan Peterson right now. Nothing too exciting too far. The current part I am listening to is mostly Peterson speaking about the psychological differences between men and women. (A taboo topic, I know!)

I'm surprised at how young James Damore seems. And it is interested to see how he was suddenly thrown into this whole kefluffle just for daring to question the lockstep ideology of the progressive left. I no longer think it is likely at all that he was trying to quit or cause a stir.

This whole affair really shows the dogmatism and fundamentalism of politically correct left in the US. I think we may be starting a preference cascade.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by pharphis

I linked the Peterson talk earlier and I just finished it. In the first 15 minutes he explains what actually happened and what his intentions were (some of his claims will likely lead to legal action because he claims google is illegally discriminating in their hiring policies).

In the latter half of the chat, Peterson goes through some of his claims and the evidence for or against it. Overall, he's very accurate about almost everything, with a few less well-supported (but still supported!) claims. Remember, this is was feedback for diversity initiatives, not a PhD thesis.

Not that PhD level responses to diversity initiatives are above rebuke, either. Shades of Evergreen State.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[sonofthor]

Originally Posted by pharphis

I linked the Peterson talk earlier and I just finished it. In the first 15 minutes he explains what actually happened and what his intentions were (some of his claims will likely lead to legal action because he claims google is illegally discriminating in their hiring policies).

In the latter half of the chat, Peterson goes through some of his claims and the evidence for or against it. Overall, he's very accurate about almost everything, with a few less well-supported (but still supported!) claims. Remember, this is was feedback for diversity initiatives, not a PhD thesis.

Great! Yes, I thought the same about James as well. I am hoping he does more interviews with the likes of Gad Saad, Joe Morgan, and The Rubin report, next. However, I didn't really care that much for the Stefan Molyneux interview. I thought James didn't have many chances to go into more detail about his studies at MIT. Stefan just seem to go on a rant(s) too much. But hoping we'll hear more from James in the near future.

[Delphic Oracle]

I can't tell you how many trans folks I know cite physiological differences in male vs. female brains as part of their validation.

Is this a thing? Is this not a thing?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Sorry I did say I know nothing about hunting. I'm not aware that there is a genetic basis for enjoying hunting. Haven't looked into it. I as a man have no interest in hunting. Did I not get that gene? Your argument above hasn't convinced me I have to say.

And now you're engaging in black-and-white thinking. Because hunting is a male-dominated activity doesn't mean ALL males enjoy it, especially now that it's not socially desirable.

But that's the reason why men are larger and stronger than females in humans: men are built to hunt and fight, women not. It's a good evolutionary strategy, when you think about it, as half the species requires less food than the other to survive, allowing the entire tribe to require less game and gathering.

Quote:

I'm happy to review any arguments that show 80/20 is the right ratio. The memo in question certainly didn't provide one.

That's because neither the memo's author nor I made the argument that _any_ ratio is "right". That's a concept that is beyond this discussion, as it has no basis in objective fact.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

If you don't know the right ratio then it's pretty unlikely we arrived at the right one by accident.

Once again I think you're not reasoning this properly. Not only because there is no such thing as the "right" raio, but because if we're talking about the "natural" balance of the genders in a given field, it's an impossible task to determine. At best you could say, if there's no discrimination and no strong social pressure to exclude one group from the career, then whatever ratio we get is "right". So in fact the one we arrived at by accident is MORE likely to be the right one.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

At first I was going to say circular logic, but you phrased the same statement two ways is all.

/golfclap

The gender gap is potentially evidence for bias. It is also potentially evidence for various other plausible explanations.

You butchered your attempt at "simple" logic and this subject is not going to get solved by simple solutions anyways.

This kind of stuff is more diversity theatre than the real thing, any more. It placates people while the underlying issues go unaddressed.

I was being sarcastic. 😊

I know that what I said was as stupid and asinine as the stuff you would typically hear from people promoting this garbage, but I was just being silly.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Darat

Communication takes cooperation if you do not wish to cooperate that is your prerogative.

And as usual you, Darat, cannot possibly have any responsibility in the misunderstanding, right?

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Tony

I was being sarcastic.

I know that what I said was as stupid and asinine as the stuff you would typically hear from people promoting this garbage, but I was just being silly.

Well played :9.

It provided a convenient springboard, anyways.

This subject tests my limits. I have a roommate who's dead serious with this stuff. Native/latinex woman incest survivor two-spirit bi/gender-queer and probably several other victimized labels I would get lectured about forgetting in my stupor of privilege.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot

I'm listening to the Jordan Peterson right now. Nothing too exciting too far. The current part I am listening to is mostly Peterson speaking about the psychological differences between men and women. (A taboo topic, I know!)

I'm surprised at how young James Damore seems. And it is interested to see how he was suddenly thrown into this whole kefluffle just for daring to question the lockstep ideology of the progressive left. I no longer think it is likely at all that he was trying to quit or cause a stir.

This whole affair really shows the dogmatism and fundamentalism of politically correct left in the US. I think we may be starting a preference cascade.

Preference cascade?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Of course he is.

He really isn't. There's no way to make one mean the other unless you have an agenda to support. He's not blaming the employees in any way shape or form, and the only to argue that he is is to appeal to words that aren't there but that you can secretly discern.

Quote:

The point of the diversity initiative is to encourage the conscientious hiring of minorities as a way of artificially compensating for oft-demonstrated discrimination tendencies in hiring processes that don't feature that guidance.

So it's solving discrimination with more discrimination. Nothing hypocritical there. Nope.

No, the point should be to stop discrimination and change social attitudes towards women and minorities, wait a generation or two for the changes to take full hold, and problem solved. Whatever you get, that's it.

Quote:

The author's screed attempts to justify a gender gap by claiming that males in general are more drawn to coding jobs than females for reasons X, Y, and Z. That's all well and good, but hiring discrimination in a voluntary application process doesn't come from "general population" gender interest gaps.

I think we all agree that discrimination of that sort is bad. The disagreement is how to detect and solve it.

Quote:

"Possibilities" that don't matter as much as the author asserts they do.

And how do you know this?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then your posts were worse than I thought. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you simply didn't know. But you did know. You simply chose to lie about it.

Again, it doesn't matter what you think of his proposals. Hell, you could even be right that his proposals are "nonsense". The point is, he still argued for more diversity. You knew he did, and you lied about it.

No he didn't. He put forward three lines of suggestion in a screed against diversity then immediately countered them by saying we shouldn't do anything significant to implement them and socially engineer things.

You chose to hang on those few words and ignore the entire meaning of what he wrote. You are the one lying if anyone is.