Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I thought this one was well done:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...biology-sexism

The Google Manifesto grossly generalizes, and is therefore ridiculous.

But considering all that's been written about it, I ran across one odd contradiction in many criticisms.

The benefit of diversity is bringing varied viewpoints and backgrounds to work, which obviously aids efficiency and creativity. This is, of course, because these people are different from each other to some extent. Why then do so many of the same people who rightly argue that point flip out when someone highlights the differences?

Men and women are different to a degree. So are people from Kansas and NYC, or people who are gay, straight, and bisexual.

Damore's piece was bluntly stupid in suggesting women are by nature unsuited to tech. But his critics should be careful not to argue any reference to differences between men and women is heresy. A more subtle assesment, like the article you cite, of those differences makes the case for diversity.

Sadly, I doubt the loudest voices in the debate over this "Manifesto" will read her, or consider anything beyond the most blunt arguments. Which, as always, pervert, simplify, and eclipse the discussion worth having.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why then do so many of the same people who rightly argue that point flip out when someone highlights the differences?

Caveat that I've not read the memo:

There's a massive difference between diversity of experience, background and insight and difference in inherent ability. The former is the point of diversity. The latter is prejudice.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Google Manifesto grossly generalizes, and is therefore ridiculous.

But considering all that's been written about it, I ran across one odd contradiction in many criticisms.

The benefit of diversity is bringing varied viewpoints and backgrounds to work, which obviously aids efficiency and creativity. This is, of course, because these people are different from each other to some extent. Why then do so many of the same people who rightly argue that point flip out when someone highlights the differences?

Men and women are different to a degree. So are people from Kansas and NYC, or people who are gay, straight, and bisexual.

Damore's piece was bluntly stupid in suggesting women are by nature unsuited to tech. But his critics should be careful not to argue any reference to differences between men and women is heresy. A more subtle assesment, like the article you cite, of those differences makes the case for diversity.

Sadly, I doubt the loudest voices in the debate over this "Manifesto" will read her, or consider anything beyond the most blunt arguments. Which, as always, pervert, simplify, and eclipse the discussion worth having.

People are not flipping out because he "highlighted the differences" or "arguing any reference to differences between men and women is heresy." At least, not that I've seen.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Which, as always, pervert, simplify, and eclipse the discussion worth having.

I read "pervert" as a noun, and wonder what you know about Ty that I don't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Google Manifesto grossly generalizes, and is therefore ridiculous.

But considering all that's been written about it, I ran across one odd contradiction in many criticisms.

The benefit of diversity is bringing varied viewpoints and backgrounds to work, which obviously aids efficiency and creativity. This is, of course, because these people are different from each other to some extent. Why then do so many of the same people who rightly argue that point flip out when someone highlights the differences?

Men and women are different to a degree. So are people from Kansas and NYC, or people who are gay, straight, and bisexual.

Damore's piece was bluntly stupid in suggesting women are by nature unsuited to tech. But his critics should be careful not to argue any reference to differences between men and women is heresy. A more subtle assesment, like the article you cite, of those differences makes the case for diversity.

Sadly, I doubt the loudest voices in the debate over this "Manifesto" will read her, or consider anything beyond the most blunt arguments. Which, as always, pervert, simplify, and eclipse the discussion worth having.

God knows I will never argue you're the most subtle thinker around, but you've put your finger on one very basic point that fundamentally eluded Damore, which is that even if there are differences, the combination of two viewpoints might be more powerful than either by themselves.

Damore was heading where the testosterone-addled right wing nutcases always head: women ought to make my sandwich, blacks ought to hoe my crops, sure, some might be helpful here and there, but not most of them, and, hey, I could use a sandwich. Yet, the mere fact that he couldn't figure out the benefits of diversity means he really kind of sucked at the job for which he thought he was biologically suited.

Damore and his defenders, like David Brooks, end up separated from the armed mob at Charlottesville by very little. Each of them are seeking to assert an innate superiority.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

If the ultimate goal is to remove Trump from the presidency, don't we want him to continue to act like an insane person in the short run? Assuming there is a real possibility of impeachment after Mueller completes his investigation? His outrageous acts just make impeachment easier for spineless republicans to remove him, right?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

If the ultimate goal is to remove Trump from the presidency, don't we want him to continue to act like an insane person in the short run? Assuming there is a real possibility of impeachment after Mueller completes his investigation? His outrageous acts just make impeachment easier for spineless republicans to remove him, right?

The only hope for impeachment is a Democratic majority house, and the only hope for conviction in a Senate Trial after that, and removal from the Presidency is... well, there isn't any. Republicans will muster 34 Senators to defend the possibility of naming Jeff Sessions to the next opening on the Supreme Court.

It has nothing to do with what Trump does, he's already shown that.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

If the ultimate goal is to remove Trump from the presidency, don't we want him to continue to act like an insane person in the short run? Assuming there is a real possibility of impeachment after Mueller completes his investigation? His outrageous acts just make impeachment easier for spineless republicans to remove him, right?

I think it depends on what you're talking about. If by continuing "to act like an insane person in the short run," means encouraging white supremacists to arm themselves for a planned riot in which they kill people, I'm going to go with, "No." Similarly, if he jumps into a war (nuclear or not) because he wants to be a tough guy, again, no. Actually, there seem to be many examples I can list.

I agree with you what may be needed to get the spineless republicans to act, but if the evidence of collusion and financial impropriety is there, I don't think we should have to keep building a case on the backs of every vulnerable community in the country.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think it depends on what you're talking about. If by continuing "to act like an insane person in the short run," means encouraging white supremacists to arm themselves for a planned riot in which they kill people, I'm going to go with, "No." Similarly, if he jumps into a war (nuclear or not) because he wants to be a tough guy, again, no. Actually, there seem to be many examples I can list.

I agree with you what may be needed to get the spineless republicans to act, but if the evidence of collusion and financial impropriety is there, I don't think we should have to keep building a case on the backs of every vulnerable community in the country.

TM

Democrats ought to focus on what they can do, rather on what they hope Trump does, since no one (least of all himself) can control him. This means, e.g., spending less time imploring him to say things that he won't say, and more time figuring out how to use his white-nationalist dog whistles as a wedge issue to split off members of his coalition. For once, I agree with Bill Kristen: "I've got to say, I'm sick of the imploring & pleading with Donald Trump to say the right thing. He said what he meant & meant what he said." Figure out how to use it as a weapon.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

So, someone on facebook posted over the weekend that it is amazing how everyone* seems to rally to condemn white nationalists, supremacists, and Nazis who are armed to the teeth and out marching in full racist gear looking to start trouble (and actually killing people). But when racism isn't wearing a uniform and takes the form of policy, everyone seems to be completely fucking silent. (Okay, maybe they didn't say that exactly, but that was the sentiment.)

When Sessions states that he's not going to continue the fucking agreed upon consent decrees and federal monitoring that Obama's DOJ reached with police departments who were found by the Justice Department to be violating people's rights, where the fuck is everyone?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/u...rime.html?_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...404-story.html

When the Trump Administration decides to exclude violent white supremacists from a government anti-terrorism program and focus its efforts solely on Islamist extremism, why is everyone so quiet?

http://fortune.com/2017/02/02/trump-...macists-islam/

It's very easy to point at some jackass dressed up as a Nazi and say, "That guy sucks." But we need people to be outraged at the institutional policies this racist Administration is putting in place to empower these very same people.

TM

*Well, almost everyone.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think it depends on what you're talking about. If by continuing "to act like an insane person in the short run," means encouraging white supremacists to arm themselves for a planned riot in which they kill people, I'm going to go with, "No." Similarly, if he jumps into a war (nuclear or not) because he wants to be a tough guy, again, no. Actually, there seem to be many examples I can list.

I agree with you what may be needed to get the spineless republicans to act, but if the evidence of collusion and financial impropriety is there, I don't think we should have to keep building a case on the backs of every vulnerable community in the country.

TM

Well what should happen and what will happen are two different things. In the short run we just have to keep him away from the nuke button. His refusal to condemn white nationalists is to going to make it easier to remove him, right? Or maybe the country has gone completely nuts (possible) and it will make him more popular. Is it Lucy from Peanuts who yells "STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF!"?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Well what should happen and what will happen are two different things. In the short run we just have to keep him away from the nuke button. His refusal to condemn white nationalists is to going to make it easier to remove him, right? Or maybe the country has gone completely nuts (possible) and it will make him more popular. Is it Lucy from Peanuts who yells "STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF!"?

I hear you. But I agree with 3Greedy. Republicans do not care about this White Nationalist stuff. Rubio and Cruz are just trying to seem Presidential. And the rest are fully behind Sessions and the Administration's racist policies and his flirtation with these groups which make up large swaths of their base. Nothing this guy does is going to get him impeached. Hell, he's shitting all over them and blaming them for his inability to lead. They can lose on every single piece of legislation they want to put in place. As long as they can continue to fill the courts with right wing lunatics, they're going to go along with his bullshit.

You heard McConnell after the embarrassing defeat of his bullshit healthcare bill. "Even on the night when we came up one vote short of our dream to repeal and replace Obamacare, here's the first thing I thought about — feel better, Hillary Clinton could be president."

As the country burns around them, that statement is all that Republicans stand for.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

TM