• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'm enjoying all the pearl clutching on the Right for this supposed "liberal corporate facsism" considering these same douchebags generally love the idea of a corporation hiring and firing whoever they damn well please for whatever reason.

But as is the case with everything in life: IOKIYAR.
 

Sianos

Member
The number of computer programmers and even the number of people who had access to computers in the late '70's / early '80's was tiny. It's hard to draw much from the numbers back then, although it seems obvious from how the field was / is viewed that social factors mattered back then (it was viewed as secretarial work) and now (it's a male-dominated field). It would absolutely be a mistake to ignore the way girls are socialized and the impact of environment on women's interest in the field. And any ideas popping up that women aren't as capable in the field should be harshly rebuked. All that said, we might still end up with only 20-30% of the field being women because they're, on average, less interested, and that's okay.

I feel like this is akin to centuries ago saying that writing - and literacy itself - will remain a male-dominated endeavor because women just aren't interested in it. This has played out before in history.

Considering the ubiquity of computers in modern society, I think it is important to encourage everyone to pursue a greater level of technological literacy, just as in developing nations there are campaigns towards a rise in literacy (as in reading) in young women. I also think that the falling participation of men in higher education is a problem that should be addressed. An educated populace is a benefit to everyone.

The problem isn't just that there are less women than men in writing/computer science: it's that there are notable roadblocks to the participation of women and a readily visible toxic culture against women that's poorly rationalized away using pseudoscience.
 

Jackpot

Banned
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/09/james-damore-google-memo-youtube-interviews

Fired Google memo writer gives first big interviews to rightwing YouTubers

James Damore, the engineer fired this week for his criticism of diversity, spoke with two YouTube personalities who have espoused anti-feminist views

Molyneux, host of the Freedomain Radio, billed as the “largest philosophy conversation in the world”, has posted videos titled Why Feminists Hate Men: What They Won’t Tell You! and Feminism is Socialism with Panties.

Peterson, also a University of Toronto psychology professor, has faced backlash for discriminatory remarks against transgender students, saying he would refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns for trans and non-binary students who don’t identify as male or female. At the time, he slammed the “social justice warrior, left-wing radical political activists” on college campuses.

Seems to be wearing his prejudices on his sleeve.
 
So nothing concrete then?



Seems that way.

I mean there's literally stuff in the Guardian article that doesn't exactly paint the guy in a good light but sure if you're only concern is the one concept of saying women are inferior I guess we can pretend Peterson is fine.

Peterson has claimed that the ”idea of white privilege is absolutely reprehensible" and ”dangerous" and has criticized the concept of ”safe spaces" at colleges and women and gender studies.

”If you need a safe space, see a therapist," he said recently. Peterson, also a University of Toronto psychology professor, has faced backlash for discriminatory remarks against transgender students, saying he would refuse to use gender-neutral pronouns for trans and non-binary students who don't identify as male or female. At the time, he slammed the ”social justice warrior, left-wing radical political activists" on college campuses.
 

Chmpocalypse

Blizzard
"He didn't use the literal words when explaining his sexist views" is not the clever gotcha some of you in this thread appear to believe.

We've seen this lawyering schtick before. It's not fooling anyone with half a brain.
 
I know Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias are ridiculed as "neoliberal shills" around these parts, but this week's episode of Weeds on Vox tore this guy a new one.

It was a really good podcast.
 
Are you watching the alternate reality versions of them?

They are in the article, and it's incredibly clear.
Where?

"He didn't use the literal words when explaining his sexist views" is not the clever gotcha some of you in this thread appear to believe.

We've seen this lawyering schtick before. It's not fooling anyone with half a brain.
By this logic I could just assume you're trying to troll with anything you could say, same for me, even though you or I don't outright say it, but we don't do that because we're people and we have to use our words to discuss things.

It's too easy to put words in people's mouths, much harder to actually try to discuss things.
 
I will say the GOP becoming mostly a party of anti-science has really helped out a lot of folks who want to express conservativism without taking on the brand, because you end up with a lot of well they can't be right wing because they believe in science implications, even if they are using the science poorly and for discriminatory purposes.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Have you watched any of Peterson's lectures/podcasts or did you read three sentences in the Guardian and make up your mind about the guy?

Where?


By this logic I could just assume you're trying to troll with anything you could say, same for me, even though you or I don't outright say it, but we don't do that because we're people and we have to use our words to discuss things.

It's too easy to put words in people's mouths, much harder to actually try to discuss things.

So...are you guys arguing that this dude's not alt-right, or that he's just not alt-right when it comes to gender?

I only see Peterson's videos shared by alt-righters, I see the vast majority of his interviews done by alt-righters, and so forth.

Do you feel there may be a reason for that?
 

AoM

Member
I watched and read the stuff linked in the article.

Which nowhere says that he thinks "women are biologically inferior".

I mean there's literally stuff in the Guardian article that doesn't exactly paint the guy in a good light but sure if you're only concern is the one concept of saying women are inferior I guess we can pretend Peterson is fine.

Sure. But my point was that when you throw out an accusation like that, you should be able to support it.

So...are you guys arguing that this dude's not alt-right, or that he's just not alt-right when it comes to gender?

I only see Peterson's videos shared by alt-righters, I see the vast majority of his interviews done by alt-righters, and so forth.

Do you feel there may be a reason for that?

I think the term's as overused for the right as SJW is for the left.
 

Erevador

Member
Peterson is a well known Men's Rights Activist, and is pretty popular on the Alt-Right.
That is not an accurate description of him or his work. He's not even really right wing. And he also referred to the MGTOW crowd as "pathetic weasels," so he's certainly no MRA. He referred to the Alt-Right, by the way, as "safe space culture on the scale of the nation." He sees it as likely to empower a totalitarian state. So you're completely misrepresenting him. He also talks endlessly about the horrors of Nazism and the holocaust, which wouldn't exactly endear him to the paranoid Jew-haters on the Alt-Right.

His views on gender are quite mainstream among those who accept the idea that evolution (evolutionary psychology) has an impact on human behavior, including on differences in outcomes between men and women. He's certainly no sexist, and he's explicated in great detail that men who blame their problems and insufficiencies on women are unbearable.

Your defamatory attack is totally wrong. If I were to try and categorize Peterson's political views, I would imagine they would match up more or less perfectly with the scientifically-minded classical liberalism of thinkers like Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt.
 

Ozigizo

Member
Which nowhere says that he thinks "women are biologically inferior".



Sure. But my point was that when you throw out an accusation like that, you should be able to support it.

But that's not what the point of the post you quoted was.

This man is popular with the alt-right. This is what we are trying to establish here.
 
So...are you guys arguing that this dude's not alt-right, or that he's just not alt-right when it comes to gender?

I only see Peterson's videos shared by alt-righters, I see the vast majority of his interviews done by alt-righters, and so forth.

Do you feel there may be a reason for that?

I couldn't care less about the alt-right and their shitty frog memes. Peterson makes tons of great content and I enjoy it.
 

AoM

Member
But that's not what the point of the post you quoted was.

This man is popular with the alt-right. This is what we are trying to establish here.

I've not said otherwise. Oblivion said Peterson thinks that women are biologically inferior. Where has he expressed that view?
 

Zeph

Neo Member
Yeah it should be discussed. For example, in elementary school girls perform as well as boys in science classes. But once they enter middle school, a gap begins to show and grow with boys performing better and girls performing worse. This trend continues into high school and naturally impacts their post-high school studies. One could look at this and say "women are less interested in science than men" or we could look at social factors, how science is taught, and how girls are literally taught and spoken to differently specifically when it comes to science education. This was a big issue a few years ago and there are studies showing this gap and others recommending classroom level changes to address this gap. It turns out the major factors are environmental, not biological or related to inherent gender differences. Not shockingly:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-news-blog/2013/feb/05/girls-science-gender-gap-fix

This is a complex subject and naturally people will look for science that reinforce their opinion. Truth is the cause is certainly both environmental and biological. There are a lot of studies (see for instance this article https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...r-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ ) that supports the author's observations, even though that doesn't necessarily justify his ideas.

As for the performance study you've linked, that's an interesting one but sadly not much is said about the test itself (also note that this article comes from a guardian blog, and is a first ideological layer on the more neutral NYT report linked). For example, does the test includes Biology and Earth sciences, fields that are, especially in middle school, fairly different from more theoritical science and where the gender gap is probably lesser. You also have to consider that it compares means, and we have no idea of the repartition of boys and girls for each score range. It's known that girls outperform boys in school in genera, and boys' average could be dragged down by some bad students who don't value academics. And maybe the top 20% could have more boys than girls and is the first step to the gender gap. Finaly (at least in France, where boys performs better according to the graph), science is really introductory and most of my girl friends started having difficulty/disinterest in high school so after 15 yo (the age of the students tested).

The blogger also omits that the performance gap concerns not only the US but a good part of the western countries. Is engineering typically seen as a male field there and women face a uphill battle in their cursus ? Yes. But you have to consider the other side : some asian and eastern countries have incredible competition or economic prospects largely in favor of STEM fields. Performance is not interest - maybe you are good in science because you kinda have to.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
That is not an accurate description of him or his work. He's not even really right wing. And he also referred to the MGTOW crowd as "pathetic weasels," so he's certainly no MRA. He referred to the Alt-Right, by the way, as "safe space culture on the scale of the nation." He sees it as likely to empower a totalitarian state. So you're completely misrepresenting him. He also talks endlessly about the horrors of Nazism and the holocaust, which wouldn't exactly endear him to the paranoid Jew-haters on the Alt-Right.

His views on gender are quite mainstream among those who accept the idea that evolution (evolutionary psychology) has an impact on human behavior, including on differences in outcomes between men and women. He's certainly no sexist, and he's explicated in great detail that men who blame their problems and insufficiencies on women are unbearable.

Your defamatory attack is totally wrong. If I were to try and categorize Peterson's political views, I would imagine they would match up more or less perfectly with the scientifically-minded classical liberalism of thinkers like Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt.

I've seen quite a few of this dude's videos. The only reason I'm even aware of this dude's existence is he shows up in my recommended videos list any time I accidentally view some alt-right Youtuber video. I'm mainly familiar with him based on his criticism of transgender people. Are you going to argue that his opinions on that subject are also scientifically legitimate?
 

Erevador

Member
I've seen quite a few of this dude's videos. The only reason I'm even aware of this dude's existence is he shows up in my recommended videos list any time I accidentally view some alt-right Youtuber video. I'm mainly familiar with him based on his criticism of transgender people. Are you going to argue that his opinions on that subject are also scientifically legitimate?
He doesn't criticize transgender people. He criticizes attempts by those who claim to speak on their behalf to use the force of law to compel the use of certain words when discussing the nature of reality. How is that a "criticism of transgender people?"

He has no desire to restrict the rights of transgender people. Obviously. He simply rejects dictatorial speech codes. He's spoken of receiving many letters from transgender people who agree with him.

Have you seen his speech before the Canadian senate? He outlined his views on this issue in great detail, and I can't imagine how you could view that and still conclude that he was arguing a "criticism of transgender people."
 

TTOOLL

Member
I've seen quite a few of this dude's videos. The only reason I'm even aware of this dude's existence is he shows up in my recommended videos list any time I accidentally view some alt-right Youtuber video. I'm mainly familiar with him based on his criticism of transgender people. Are you going to argue that his opinions on that subject are also scientifically legitimate?

So, your description of the guy is based on YOUTUBE recommendations, which by the way, are considered to be really bad.

Also, transgender people cannot be criticized in any way? As far as I know, ANYBODY can be subject to criticism.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
He doesn't criticize transgender people. He criticizes attempts by those who claim to speak on their behalf to use the force of law to compel the use of certain words when discussing the nature of reality. How is that a "criticism of transgender people?"

He has no desire to restrict the rights of transgender people. Obviously. He simply rejects dictatorial speech codes. He's spoken of receiving many letters from transgender people who agree with him.

Have you seen his speech before the Canadian senate? He outlined his views on this issue in great detail, and I can't imagine how you could view that and still conclude that he was arguing a "criticism of transgender people."

Bullpucky.

First off, the "dictatorial speech codes" that you're talking about, as far as I know, seem to be designed so that a transgender person has legal recourse if someone (from what I understand, say in a position of power like a landlord, or boss, or professor, etc.) maliciously misgenders them. This doesn't mean that if say, someone bumped into a trangender person on the street and said "oh, sorry dude", and that transgender person said "well, actually, I'm a chick", that the guy who said that would go to jail or be fined a million dollars or whatever. All it means is that you can't consistently misgender someone in a malicious way. It's essentially the same thing as not expecting your boss to call one of their employees the n-word.

This guy just did an interview with David Pakman last week where Pakman asked him that if he had a transgender student who asked him to refer to them with a given pronoun, would he honor their wishes and he flatly stated no he wouldn't.

The guy's an asshole.
 

Laiza

Member
Also, transgender people cannot be criticized in any way? As far as I know, ANYBODY can be subject to criticism.
I don't know anything about this Peterson fellow, but as a member of one of the most discriminated-against minorities on the face of planet Earth, I must tell you that talking down to a transgender person is a pretty good fucking sign of someone being an asshole.

Obviously, transgender people can be subject to any of the same criticisms as anyone else (see: Caitlyn Jenner), but outright refusing to recognize us as our identified gender basically means you don't believe transgender people exist, or that we're all totally 100% delusional, neither of which is a good look. Don't do this. And don't defend people that do this.
 

Riposte

Member
Your defamatory attack is totally wrong. If I were to try and categorize Peterson's political views, I would imagine they would match up more or less perfectly with the scientifically-minded classical liberalism of thinkers like Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt.

I think the grouping is effectively right in the most relevant ways, but at his core Peterson is more conservative/traditionalist and religious than someone like Pinker. He reminds me of Norm Macdonald in that he's a highly-literate Tolstoy-loving crypto-christian Canadian.

I don't know anything about this Peterson fellow, but as a member of one of the most discriminated-against minorities on the face of planet Earth, I must tell you that talking down to a transgender person is a pretty good fucking sign of someone being an asshole.

I think it would be more accurate to say he's being an asshole to anyone who prefers gender-neutral pronouns rather than transgender people specifically, as the latter prefer he/she by a large extent. His bigger issue seems to be the idea you can be punished for not saying something, which he often highlights is very different from being punished for saying something. "Compelled speech".
 
This guy just did an interview with David Pakman last week where Pakman asked him that if he had a transgender student who asked him to refer to them with a given pronoun, would he honor their wishes and he flatly stated no he wouldn't.

The guy's an asshole.

He was specifically talking about the Zhe/Zer pronouns within a legal framework. Here's the link. His full response starts around 13:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsT4KU4_vdo&list=PLVrg5xLmCvhHlHqggqZuMF8Ibs5ihRjkz&index=2
 

Erevador

Member
I think the grouping is effectively right in the most relevant ways, but at his core Peterson is more conservative/traditionalist and religious than someone like Pinker. He reminds me of Norm Macdonald in that he's a highly-literate Tolstoy-loving crypto-christian Canadian.
An extremely amusing and somewhat accurate comparison, though I think most true conservative traditionalists would be absolutely appalled and triggered by countless things Peterson and Macdonald say.

I need to add the phrase Tolstoy-loving crypto-christian to my permanent vocabulary.
He was specifically talking about the Zhe/Zer pronouns within a legal framework. Here's the link. His full response starts around 13:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsT4KU4_vdo&list=PLVrg5xLmCvhHlHqggqZuMF8Ibs5ihRjkz&index=2
Yes, Oblivion doesn't seem to be making any attempt to argue honestly.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
He was specifically talking about the Zhe/Zer pronouns within a legal framework. Here's the link. His full response starts around 13:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsT4KU4_vdo&list=PLVrg5xLmCvhHlHqggqZuMF8Ibs5ihRjkz&index=2

Yes, Oblivion doesn't seem to be making any attempt to argue honestly.

What are you talking about? I'm not understanding how his refusal to specifically use the Zhe/Zer pronouns somehow make this issue any more legitimate?
 
That is not an accurate description of him or his work. He's not even really right wing. And he also referred to the MGTOW crowd as "pathetic weasels," so he's certainly no MRA. He referred to the Alt-Right, by the way, as "safe space culture on the scale of the nation." He sees it as likely to empower a totalitarian state. So you're completely misrepresenting him. He also talks endlessly about the horrors of Nazism and the holocaust, which wouldn't exactly endear him to the paranoid Jew-haters on the Alt-Right.

His views on gender are quite mainstream among those who accept the idea that evolution (evolutionary psychology) has an impact on human behavior, including on differences in outcomes between men and women. He's certainly no sexist, and he's explicated in great detail that men who blame their problems and insufficiencies on women are unbearable.

Your defamatory attack is totally wrong. If I were to try and categorize Peterson's political views, I would imagine they would match up more or less perfectly with the scientifically-minded classical liberalism of thinkers like Steven Pinker and Jonathan Haidt.
Great post.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
He doesn't misgender people. If you identify as a man, he says he/him. If you identify as a woman, he says her/she.

I think we're discussing two things simultaneously here.

1) The "dictatorial speech codes" which include the Canadian law that this dude's against (and similar ones that got passed in places like NYC) which do include the her/she/he/him/etc.

and

2) Peterson specifically refusing to use "zhe/zer" if he was asked to.
 
I think we're discussing two things simultaneously here.

1) The "dictatorial speech codes" which include the Canadian law that this dude's against (and similar ones that got passed in places like NYC) which do include the her/she/he/him/etc.

and

2) Peterson specifically refusing to use "zhe/zer" if he was asked to.
Right, he refuses to use what he considers arbitrary made up pronouns. That's the compelled speech he's against. I would just use 'they' in the situation where someone didn't identify as a man or woman. Or their name.
 

Sue

Banned
I must've imagined where you suggested How to Win Friends and Influence People as if it's never been tried before.

For you as an individual. MOST individual one on one issues can be easily resolved by using empathy and other techniques found in that and and similar books. When I was a waitress at steak and shake on night shifts. I would sometimes come early when it was super busy and that was how you solve issues. BUT there are rare times when somebody is incorrigible. That's kind of a microcosm of society. Some white people who live in white areas see themselves as white republicans before human and American first or second. But when you talk to them and show them common ground. Barriers break down.

What is the alternative ? Blanket hate or dismissal ? No.

Like, my friend Nikki is kind of a hippie and hates Trump. But her bf is a naval officer. They're both nurses tho. But he loves Trump. But they don't even care that much. They just love.

There are too many boundaries. Too many artificial borders. Country, color, religion, gender. Country kind of makes sense sometimes. But the others .no way.
This white guy at google seemed likke he just wanted the same opportunities to take special classes or whatever.

Anyways doesn't matter what I write. You or somebody else will dig out one sentence and focus on that instead of the point. Which is let's just help each other and work together. Figure out solutions without jumping to hate or demonize.
 

JeTmAn81

Member
Right, he refuses to use what he considers arbitrary made up pronouns. That's the compelled speech he's against. I would just use 'they' in the situation where someone didn't identify as a man or woman. Or their name.

I think the bigger issue was with the law that makes it illegal to choose not to say those pronouns. That's the compelled speech.
 

Erevador

Member
Right, he refuses to use what he considers arbitrary made up pronouns. That's the compelled speech he's against. I would just use 'they' in the situation where someone didn't identify as a man or woman. Or their name.
He also, I think quite rightly, objects to being legally compelled to use pronouns (in the case of the genderfluid types) that are entirely subjective and malleable, and thus could change at any time. He argues against trying to build a legalistic framework around such a subjective and unstable concept. If you are "he" one day, "she" the next, and "zher" the day after... can I be legally compelled to address you properly each day? Must I ask you each day how you would like to be referred to? Must a professor do this with each student, each day? Can they be punished if they don't?

These laws are attempting to be inclusive, but in actuality they are building nebulous subjectivity into the fabric of the law in a way that invites misuse and confusion.

These are issues to be sorted out among the populace in the form of naturally evolving etiquette, not government fiat.
 

oneils

Member
I think the bigger issue was with the law that makes it illegal to choose not to say those pronouns. That's the compelled speech.

The proposed law wouldn't make it illegal to not use the gender neutral pronouns. Instead, it was the policy that would be used to enforce the law that was the issue. The proposed law's impact assessment (I think) originally cited Ontario human rights commission policy that claimed refusal to use these pronouns is harassment. But the Feds have since backed off from this policy (they are silent on it). Now it's not really clear what is against the law according to this bill.
 
Top Bottom