The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

hold on. quote these please.

There are three aspects to this that you are touching on: technical, fundamental, and political.

Technically you can't actually just fire anyone for their opinion under libertarianism. It would depend on the contractual terms of employment. For example if I say to you "I agree to employ you for 12 months for $x" but then I fire you after 6 months and refuse to pay the full $x, I've broken that contract and essentially stolen from you. That isn't libertarian. I didn't keep my word.

The fundamental aspect is a misunderstanding that libertarianism is based on moral relativism. One might come to libertarianism from that perspective, but it certainly isn't a fundamental pre-requisite. For example, on the contrary I'm libertarian because I believe there are truths out there, that there are qualitative differences between values, and that the most effective way of discovering them is by allowing people the freedom to choose in their own interest unmolested by coercion as long as they aren't coercing anyone else. I don't presume to think that my own personal knowledge is so complete and correct as to be mandatory for all on threat of violence.

It doesn't mean I will agree with everything that everyone else chooses. Which is the point of libertarianism as a means of peaceful deconflliction. We will, and can express different values without being violent towards each other. For example I think smoking is bad and if my friend was a smoker I would tell them about the risks of lung cancer and early death. The line I wouldn't cross is initiating violence to get them to stop smoking.

In the same way, I criticise google's ideologically driven actions as stupid, anti-scientific, racist/sexist, contrary to their business interests, and directly harmful to their self proclaimed goal of making tech accessible to women. What I won't do is escalate it into an arms race by advocating the government regulate google as a public utility or whatever such nonsense just because I disagree with their practices. If government ever did that, you would find me on the other side of the fence defending google from such infringement.

The wider political aspect is that Google is acting as a concurrent host of the same ironically hateful, self contradictory, manipulative, incoherent, power hungry SJW ideology that is also trying to monopolise the ideological marketplace through political force. Criticizing its malignancy in a private company helps discredit its ability to influence government enforced policy. If there wasn't a wider political aspect to googlegate, I honestly wouldn't care as much. It's better for racism and sexism to float around in private companies than in government policy because then the racists and sexists actually have to pay a market cost/penalty in order to practice their irrational bigotry.

@elodea

Thanks for giving me another terrible exercise in buzzword bingo

"I post Sargon videos, I use the word cuck, but I'm not alt-right and I get deathly-offended when people call me that."

Bonus points for blaming everyone but the actual people who voted for Trump, and the party that gave him a platform.

You're in deep man. Deep.

Don't make the mistake of taking your queues from politically biased secondary sources without reading or researching material for yourself, especially when the source is easily accessible. Read the actual document honestly and I think you'll find it incredibly inoffensive.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

Treat yourself with the respect you deserve, guard your thoughts against ideological brainwashing by people who don't actually care about you. Don't let them zombify you into their army of the unthinking dead to be manipulated for whatever nefarious political purpose they choose.

Yea, they are basically free to fire whoever they want. Just as any other racist private company should be free to fire all blacks and women from their ranks. I want to know who the racists are, so I can avoid doing business with them.

It's actually kinda funny seeing the authoritarian SJW's on reddit and other places doing a 180 on business regulation etc. and making this argument only because it happens to be in their favour in the moment. Tells you a lot about where their genuine principles and motivations lie.

It's funny watching you be against this firing action purely because you agree with the outdated, hokey "science" espoused by the author of the internal memo.

Tells you a lot about the bias you criticise everyone else on the planet for, and yet are ultimately subject to yourself.

Dahm you got me. I guess I'll just have to take the authority of Gorbles word on the science over the actual peer reviewed work of actual psychologists and research scientists. How could i be so anti-science, thanks for showing me the light.

Also, I don't criticise people simply for having a bias. I criticise people for trying to impose their bias on other people using force e.g. through government. I also criticise ideas that I think are racist, sexist, dysfunctional, and anti-truth.

Sometimes the other side will come up with good convincing arguments about why i'm wrong and I am forced to better sort out my framework of good and bad ideas. It's happened quite often. Safe to say you aren't putting anything forward that is making me do that.

Again, read the document, research the literature on the topic. For example there was a paper that found that when you minimise sociological factors such as in Sweden, you are actually maximising the expression of biological differences as seen in the larger difference in choices between Swedish men and women than other control groups.

I read that document and Devak is totally right about it. His words made me go "Ah right that way I could've expressed what I wanted to say way shorter"...

EDIT:

Well, okay. Let's get scientific about this and actually verify what those sources say.
Like I mean actually read into them and not just go "he has linked something that looks like science".

Source 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits

uhhh wikipedia. How scientific. Well let's give it a chance and see what does wiki say/cite here.

Ok it starts linking to more wikipedia about the big five personality traits model and uses that to say the stuff about higher Neuroticism for women, which is one of the big points in that argument.
Well bad for him even wikipedia reports that the big five thing also has a lot of critics:

well too bad, I guess him just jumping on the next best thing he could find on wikipedia that fit together with his view on things wasn't such a great idea. Science you say? Science means to read more than the first sentence of a subsection on wikipedia that has a title that fits you agenda.

Next block in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology#Personality_traits then says

Uh a cite on wiki, [71]. A study that reasons about big five category differences between cultures.
They just seem to propose things based on the big five evaluations made. No proofs are made. Just proposals based on a personality test that by itself is not without its critics.
The full study is behind a pay wall.

still based on [71]. Notice the "hypothesis, remains untested". Yeah nothing I'd base a decision on by a long shot. But these arguments sounds very familiar. Ah yep the google guy used exactly this argumentation. Oh wait he actually linked a free source for wikipedias [71]. Okay I'll not read through 15 pages of text now, there are more sources to have a rough look at and I don't plan to spend all day on this. The authors themselves say they only propose stuff in that study. If this has been validated many times I'd wonder if one could link more up to date results that validate these proposals.


His source on "we should not assume the gender gap means sexism":
http://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/

They again also cite Wikipedias [71]. Their argument as well mainly evolves around how if you have more freedom in a society and people can pursue what they want to do more easily you get bigger gender gaps due to innate differences. Okay that's a hypothesis. Probably partly correct? Maybe? I'd not count this as totally validated without flaw information though. I mean this is in the end based on nothing but a personality test thingy. Also for things like the wage gap I'd argue that it is quite ... particular that jobs that women pick more often end up getting lower wages then jobs men pick more often. Isn't that also a form of sexism?

But well let's say this quillette.com has some merit. Then you probably also want to acknowledge their reply to the google drama itself.
They see faults in the google guys arguments:

There is a lot of more things he cites, but my time is limited to read them all.
From what the people on that site write he does get the science right in so far as he has found the generally accepted data of "women score differently then men in these personality tests", but his exact interpretation has flaws.

somewhat unrelated to the topic:

it seems that driving into a crowd to kill people is only terrorism if you aren't white.

Google female hysteria. I could give you sources, but they're books, and i simply don't think anyone's going to read books for this little footnote.

Not sure why you're preaching here. Perhaps unless you're an athlete, astronaut or special forces, what little biological differences exist between men and women don't matter much for an IT company. or daily life for that matter. Education, drive, social skills and economical standing are far more important. Plus, role enforcement has girls be the princess while boys can be anything. Just walk into a nearby toy store. I have two little nephews obsessed with machinery, the exact same machinery their dad uses and has little miniatures of throughout the house. Same goes for my brothers. They do the very thing they pretended to as little kids.

Besides, actual research:

http://web.mit.edu/cortiz/www/Diversity/PDFs/Ely 2004.pdf

http://researchwriting2012.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/59874205/Diversity.pdf

In short, actual studies on diversity suggest that women don't negatively impact the workspace.

You really don't know what peer-reviewed means, huh.

I've tried "good" arguments before. I've tried comprehensive, cited-with-links, walloftexts.

It doesn't matter because you reject them by using words like "SJWs" and "the regressive left" unironically. There is no debating with the depth of the rabbit hole you're down.

All that remains is to point out the constant and consistent hypocrisy displayed both in the labels you stereotype other groups with, and by the arguments that you choose to align yourself with.

For example, you criticise "sexist" ideas. Unless you, the Rational Thinking Man™, has decreed that they are scientific fact. Like in the case with this internal memo. So you don't criticise sexist ideas at all. You criticise things you personally view as sexist, which should fall short of your own arguments (that you're applying to Google). But you can't see that. Because you are right. The only person who is, and can be (plus whoever agrees with you, or puts out material that conforms to your inherent bias).

You have fun with that. I'll continue doing what I'm doing, thanks

@cola_colin

Read it again, because you very clearly didn't.

He says nothing about abilities, but spends a page talking about personality differences. While Devak for some mysterious reason decided to misconstrue it as if he was saying women are less able to be good in tech or some such nonsense.

For heavens sake, there's an entire page and a half dedicated to "non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". I don't know how much more obvious it needs to be spelled out.

He even had to explicitly state the obvious, that you cannot take population level statistics to infer anything on an individual basis. Are you guys denying basic mathematics now?

If you can't see something this obvious, there is something very seriously wrong with your ability to interpret information in a functional manner. And that's not an adhom, it's a friendly warning about what else in your life you're not properly comprehending.

"if you don't agree with me you're obviously thick"

Great logic there.

So did the science people pointing at his data misinterpretation also make a mistake then? It's their critic, not mine. I just did what you said and have a look at some of the sources.

We've been here how many times? I think the first time was about the video of Trump talking about Mexicans and you and me somehow watched completely different versions of reality somehow.

Do you still think that Trump is not supporting xenophobic groups with his statements? Especially after the recent "uh they are Nazis.... uhm the situation is complicated and violence from all sides is bad"-thing?

Edited after I posted too, haha. I should start quoting these posts again.

@elodea

Saying something isn't an attack on someone as to avoid engaging with their points, doesn't actually make it not such a thing. You literally said cola_colin cannot comprehend things in a "normal" way. Ergo, avoiding his actual logic and inferring that his basic logical state is unsound. Ad hominem, by definition.

But sure. You keep harping on about Google, SJWs, and the regressive left. Those mean people who call people like you nasty names.

yeah that was Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulshit the neo nazis even published a memo stating his abscence of denoucement was a subtle message of approval.

What are you talking about? I wasn't responding to whatever you might have written about the science. I thought it was clear that I was responding to your agreeance with Devak and his misguided claim that the guy was saying women are lesser beings who don't have the ability to work in tech and that they should be discriminated against and prevented from entering the industry or whatever such nonsense he wants to suggest.

Insofar as you mischaracterise the memo from that starting point, I honestly don't really care what else you happen to say after that. Maybe you just didn't read Devak's post carefully?

His false accusations and mischaracterisations start from the very first line.

Do you actually agree with his statement?

Damore didn't claim that women can't do x or y, he claimed that women choose not to do x or y.

He condemned hate and violence full stop and somehow he's not the only sane person in the room? Blanket condemning hate and violence is now somehow advocating nazism?

You're a programmer right? Well let's see if we can't cure you of this by laying out the simple logic.

Premise A: Trump condemns all violence and hatred no matter which side it manifests
Premise B: Neo nazis are manifesting violence and hatred

Conclusion: Trump is condemning the neo nazis

And he's godahm right that the situation is complicated enough not to specifically single out the nazis. If he shows favour towards either antifa or the neo nazis, he is actually supporting the growth of both. The one he favours will benefit from not having the light of truth shone on it, and the one he doesn't favour will benefit from the ability to grandstand about their oppressed status.

You really want to talk about who is fueling the radicalisation of political discussion and the ensuing hate and violence? It's the childish media who are far more concerned with trying to sell clicks with trivial Trump gotcha moments than they are with truth and the peace and stability of an atomic super power.

Make no mistake these are now legitimately dangerous times. Nazi and communist authoritarians fighting each other on the street and a collapsing center is exactly what happened to the weimar republic. Nazi Germany could very well have otherwise been Communist Germany and suffered just the same under Stalin as did the Ukraine.

The only difference now is that it isn't pre atomic germany at play, it's the godahm united states - an atomic hegemon. And the more you keep buying into the false narrative that is painting Trump as some far right white supremacist or some other bullshit, the more the radical left will clamour for action, the more the actual far right will rise up in response, and the more the center will collapse to either side.

There are very real reasons why why bitcoin is spiking as high as it is. This isn't some game. If **** hits the fan and either the far right or the far left manage to gain significant political traction, it'll be over. Either side will literally be putting their political opponents in gulags, something which you would best remember is not what Trump is doing for all his other faults.

Well yeah it is a fact that claiming women can't do stuff because of reasons is extremely old.
Did you know that not even 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote in the US for reasons?!

Which may be a real attempt of an argument or a real attempt of hiding sexist motives, it is hard to tell. Can be used as both, is especially effective at the later however.

Premise A: A neo nazi commits a terror attack on a demonstration where many other neo nazis get rather violent.
Premise B: Trump states: "violence is bad. In general.", Reporter directly asks "Mr. Trump can you say something about those neo nazis in particular?". Trump: ... silence.

Not saying anything in that situation is saying everything really. No Trump was not willing to point fingers at nazis.
Not wanting to point fingers at nazis is ... bad?

Well I think I read somewhere that by now even Trump realized that, he made another statement and directly pointed fingers at the KKK, the nazis, etc. As he should.

"We should not single out the nazis, after they commit such extreme hatecrimes" ... yeah. *blinks with eyes* ... wait you really did write that. wtf is wrong with you. Nazis. NAZIS. Do you know who they are? They're the universal bad guys. The ultimate racists. The guys that were decided to be the first human enemies in first person shooters to be shot at.
They should be singled out just for being nazis, even if they do not commit terror attacks.

Could you please point at all those violent communists you are seeing in the US? All I see is a extreme right wing that indeed is looking dangerous and Trump finally pointing fingers at them is a good thing. The people who got attacked by the car reportedly were peacefully protesting.
The US doesn't even have a real left. At least not one that is politically important. The democrats sure don't fill that spot and there are no other parties. It's right or alt-right over there.

no he isn't :

I'm getting real tired of playing these semantic ring around the rosie games with you. You know exactly what I meant. Do you agree with Devak's implication that Damore claimed that the reason women are less represented in tech is because they don't have the capability to do it?

That's a question for you to answer to yourself. You don't need to respond to me with your answer.

Even though he very specifically says multiple times throughout the document that he isn't denying the existence of real sexism? Seirously, take off the beer goggles and go read the memo.

What are you doing my dude... Heaven's sake, the logic was so simple and yet you just had to go out of your way to twist it backwards and forwards this way and that way in order to fit your desired ideological narrative. Stop imposing secret motives on everyone where they don't exist, it's really not healthy.

What did Trump mean by this?

As for the rest, you haven't been reading widely or getting your information from a variety of sources, hence the vigorously confused blinking. You are only perceiving half the truth. The conflict was between antifa and the neo nazis - both are hateful and violent. Do you seriously not remember what antifa is? The commie black bloc that co-ordinated the violent g20 protests in your very own country not too long ago?

In case you haven't noticed, Antifa have been causing trouble in the US for a while now. From beating people over the head with bike locks, beating up innocent people with bats, throwing urine in people's faces, smashing up businesses, throwing mortars and other assorted home made smoke bombs etc. into free speech rallies, showing up at rallies with knives with the purpose of instigating conflict. This conflict between antifa and the neo nazis has been escalating for a while now. Who the hell do you think that guy drove the car into? Do you really think he just drove it into random people enjoyingg a nice afternoon stroll?[/quote]

@cola_colin

Go look up some real on the ground unbiased journalism. There is a lot more to this than you would be led to believe.





That's all i'll post. The rest you can look up for yourself if you care about finding out what is actually happening.