He's like the worse kind of person to stick on your campaign. The fact he's fleeced his followers on the Privilege Grant shows the kind of person he is (as in he's a con artist). The other people in the case are better picks for your "controversial but right" poster child whereas Milo is the "I'm a jerk that wants attention, money, and cocaine so I'm going to defraud you to get it" poster child.
Yet my comment was about blaming victims. So can you admit you're an intellectually dishonest hack that should bow out now and get a job as a CNN contrarian talking head? I heard there's been some vacancies made.
Biology isn't a simple 1-to-1 match. Nor is it merely an n-to-m mach either. Biology is really, really messy. Whether it's secondary and primary sexual traits or the color of your eyes it's mostly a statistically driven result and not one driven by a deterministic engine. DNA for all of its structure doesn't seem to give way to an easily structured expression of genes. I think this is the critical thing lost on folks (it was lost on me for years) because we're always working with something that seems very regular and systematic but when you break it down into smaller components it becomes clear how little of that is regular and systematic. So, to say that biology magically creates our minds as a whole or even in part doesn't work out. I'm not arguing for dualism but I am arguing that biology isn't so easy to model. And that we should, James Damore included, accept that our conclusions are easily overturned when we dig a bit deeper.
My comment was in reply to another comment which wasn't directly related to the letter that Damore wrote. I think you really need to read the comment I'm replying to before asserting anything else because I think you're confused. Try from the beginning and read.
That's the thing. You can't arbitrarily say that the line stops at one thing in terms of saying people are to blame for their misfortune when the same can be said for anyone that becomes a victim in any other circumstance. Either victims legitimately exist as a consequence of unfairness and injustice or they don't exist at all. It's really something that has to be said because it's the thing that I see too often stated in fluffier terms by New Agers (aka The Secret). One's attitude can no more stop the power of a bullet any more than one's attitude can stop the one who set that bullet in motion. Ultimately, we always have victims and we always have a choice to accept that they deserve justice when they are harmed.
The certainty comes from accepting that people are inherently ignorant and naturally stubborn in their ignorance. Humans, much like matter, don't like to change when left alone.
I think this whole claiming that being a victim as a self-fulfilling prophecy is flawed. It's hard to say a trans woman who's been murdered or raped had it coming. Or to say that an effeminate gay man is responsible for the actions of those who assaulted him.
I know that might not be what you mean but that is what violent perpetrators will use when it comes to court. They'll argue they panicked or that they felt an overriding urge to murder as if they went insane. This has been the common defense tactic used in criminal cases under the gay/trans panic defense. I don't know of a case where it's been entirely successful but it has mitigated sentences. So I think I'd rather have to deal with people perceiving themselves as victims but are not truly such than deal with mountains of corpses of true victims of our inherently violent cultures.
Another aspect of this is the fact many of those devices release a significant amount of radio frequency interference. Although mostly amateur radio operators and shortwave radio listeners are mostly affected that RFI does affect other electronics such as lights and TVs. Frankly, I wish the US govt would enforce its laws on energy efficiency and RFI more because they're not really that mutually exclusive barring switching power supplies (but even that to my knowledge is becoming less true as the regulator components are becoming even better at not producing as much RFI across the HF spectrum now).
Again that wouldn't have worked. As someone who's been down the rabbit hole of ultra conservatism of the 1990s I speak from my own experience but I believe it's one that gets into the basic structure of all extremist views.
1. Extremists are already convinced of their position. To them it's their mission to convince you one way or another (often by dishonest means).
2. Extremists use the notion of free speech to broaden their access to an audience even if that audience is not receptive (no attention like negative attention). Especially since it convinces them of their position if the audience is overtly hostile to their views.
3. Extremists rarely, if ever, analyze their beliefs. Those that do inevitably cease to persist in those beliefs or at very least moderate them significantly.
So the only person that could have ever convinced Rodgers to not murder is Rodgers. Extremism is basically a crude coping mechanism that inevitably harms the person who holds it (but as a consequence it harms everyone else around them). In fact, I'd say that an extremist has a similar set of maladaptive traits as a heroin or meth addict. The difference being they're not biologically addicted to their beliefs, they're merely addicted to the feeling of specialness and their outsider status.
Honest question, do you really think that their opinions weren't already extreme in light of the fact that the science on the differences between the sexes (and the races, tangentially) aren't significant enough to define hiring practices? I ask because I think we're seeing not a backlash from corporations because they're anti-science but because they're anti-scientism. We've had two centuries of science being misused to excuse unscientific policies in law and even corporate policy (and to some extent we still do this). Google, in my opinion, is right to ignore the science on the differences between groups of people because the science at this point speaks very broad terms and worse still it doesn't define social and moral goods. Science is good at describing a thing but not describing what should be done with the thing it describes, that's for philosophers, law makers, and preachers to do. And folks like Damore fall into the tar pit of scientism where they try to describe concepts of morality and philosophy in disguise when they claim they describe things in terms of a science. There's nothing scientific about fairness. It's just something we feel is fair in a given era. A century ago giving women an equal say in society whether by vote or employment would've been seen as unfair. Today? It's totally fair and expected. How that changed I won't go into but the fact is the change occurred independent of science (as it should). Science works best when it attempts to be as value free as possible. But hiring practices aren't in the sphere of science and Damore should have known this well before he wrote his letter. He should've focused on fairness and defined fairness in scope of being an employee (potential and actual). That way his point might've been accepted because at the end of his letter he spells it out as a matter of judging people on individual ability. So the rest of his letter is actually useless and hides that important point he made. All because he got caught in the trap of scientism.
"...that the answer to erroneous speech is not less speech but more speech..."
This is where I think you're completely wrong. I don't talk to someone who sees me as subhuman or irrational because I'm transgender since the vast majority of the time these folks have already concluded that since I'm subhuman and/or irrational that my arguments are invalid. Trying to break through their mental barriers as erected is like trying to dredge the Panama Canal with a tea spoon. Meaning you can do it but it's impractical. So instead of trying to engage folks that already made up their minds it's better to engage folks that are asking honest (even if insensitive) questions. Those are the folks that are worth arguing with because they're not entirely settled on an issue. But fanboys, true believers, kooks, and apologists aren't worth it by any measure. I say this as someone who's been on both sides of the fence so I have a decent understanding of the tactics employed to stay fixed in ones beliefs. I know this offends many a believer in the "market place of ideas" but reality doesn't bend to the idealism of the naive. Reality has to be obeyed to be mastered.
I wonder how long until Pai adds extra regulatory requirements for utility cooperatives that will spring up to kick the telcos out of the rural areas? I'm not joking about that notion since the telcos really hate cooperatives that spring up and replace or compete with them.
The same liberal democracy affords us the moral and legal right to not listen as well. There's no legal or moral argument to oblige others to listen or to make them captives to your words (heck, read SCOTUS on the matter, they side with me even in conservative times).
Ethics and common sense states no one is owed a hearing or respect from strangers beyond the bare minimum to be left alone. Rodgers had no excuse for murdering anyone for any reason. To attempt to rationalize his actions is to assume people who do no harm deserve to die.
I'm utterly confused by why folks think any business should subsidize the speech of employees. If we all believe in capitalism as the basis of our economy then all businesses have a right to protect themselves from their employees when they enter into situations that would leave them liable for that employees behavior or speech. Damore using a company mailing list of was clearly crossing the line. He's free to publish all he wants outside of his workplace. It's getting into a scary situation that we expand free speech to mean "freedom to have an audience or a guaranteed means to get one." And that's what Damore and other conservatives continue to push despite their claims to be advocate for free markets (which as a consequence makes them free to not subsidize or convey his speech).
I'll never understand the fascination with firms repeatedly going for the open office plan. I remember seeing pictures from the early 20th century where such offices existed full of people typing away. I don't know how they handled the noise or the fact they couldn't isolate themselves to do their work whether it was repetitive or novel in nature. It just seems like firms think of labor as a singular mechanical process and not as something that's done in an irregular and discoordinated fashion (as I've seen in my personal experience from working in factories and currently working in software development). I really think managerial practices need to update with the facts instead of forcing the facts to fit with their expectations.
I'm not sure how I feel about this since I have my own beliefs which make me a big outsider in terms of politics (being a Mutualist anarchist isn't fun when you try to explain it to coworkers). But my view is that it's best to never discuss politics or religion (and sometimes sports this one depends) at the job since it can rub people the wrong way. It's not fun working where you've either ticked someone off or you've been ticked off by someone else. Some polite distancing of one's beliefs from their work life I feel is more important than trying to offer any advice to HR, even if it has some merit. It's just asking for a pink slip and a black mark on your resume.
But the biggest confusion I think is how conservatives react to this situation for me. I use to be an avid fan of Buckley and use to read the National Review regularly as a teenager (yes I'm weird). So when I see conservatives lash out at Google over their right to fire anyone at will or on the basis that the employee is disrupting the environment at work (be it rightful or not from the point of view of fairness) I see hypocrisy of the most base kind. Conservatism in the United States values the freedom of companies, employees, and private citizens to associate and disassociate on their own. If Google wants to hire Mutualists like myself and not hire a GOP or Democrat then they should be on the principles of American Conservatism have their choice respected and not challenged in court or in some dishonest manner which violates the property rights of others. To attempt to walk back or moderate the position of free association on the basis that might hurt some people who share conservative values is to undermine the very basis of conservatism in my opinion. Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either all businesses and private citizens have the freedom of association (and disassociation) or they do not have that right. It stinks but consistency in political ideologies is an important metric to understanding whether or not an ideology can sustain itself. If American Conservatism cannot sustain itself under such consistency then the ideology is flawed and should be reformed such that it can give a conditional freedom of association on a consistent basis both in political theory and in terms of law (i.e. accepting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent additions to the law are warranted and consistent with said ideological grounds). Mind you, I'm not a conservative at all but I'm speaking from my beliefs that I held many years ago and how I interpreted American Conservatism. But I recall Buckley holding a similar view as the one I described. And it would take a mighty strong argument for me to be convinced that the contrary is consistent with American Conservatism and conservatism as a whole.
Well, for me, it's not that my loneliness is self-inflicted but a byproduct of having gender dysphoria and not much courage to actually transition or even socialize with other folks who are trans. Ultimately, my life is a pretty shallow one. I haven't gone to a movie with any friend or an acquaintance since I was 17 (I'm currently 37). So it's really hard to be a friend to anyone or even have someone who would want to be mine. When you don't socialize or have a means to socialize beyond a computer it becomes one of those habits that's impossible to learn when you're an adult. I don't know if I'll ever get out of this, personally, since the social skills I've built up are of the impersonal kind (good at work, professional as needed, reliable, but not relatable or warm).
For me, the idea of a wearable computer just seems like a waste. And I think much of that comes from the fact that I've done most of work analytical work with pencil/pen and paper. So for me technology is the thing I use to do work I could never do on a notepad or in my own head. It took me years to finally accept the idea of a password manager so I would stop reusing the same set of passwords all over the web whenever I created an account. Heck, I didn't even have a smart phone until 2014 since I still prefer the flip phone form factor. And I'm only 37 so I do think technically minded people tend to like using their own mind to do the work much like an athlete or a farm worker likes to use their own body to do physically taxing work. It's just a natural fit in that regard. For everyone else, convenience trumps practicality.
I think you have to pick who you follow better to get at the good content on Twitter. Whether it's Weird Twitter or just following a bunch of artists (SFW or even NSFW) there's plenty of content out there on Twitter.
I think the problem Twitter has is two fold. It wants people to come and stay on Twitter but it also wants those same people not fight with each other. The solution the developers picked was shadow banning. This banning where the user isn't aware that their tweets aren't visible to others who don't follow you and those who do follow you won't be notified of your tweets either (they only see them on their time line). The most common way this happens right now is someone uses of well known curse words. Right now, I'm shadow banned for whatever reason despite not tweeting at verified accounts often enough to run afoul their automated system. So this is the climate that new users experience where Twitter promises to help them engage with other users (especially verified users of notably celebrities and the like) but if you do anything vaguely hostile in their view then you lose the freedom to interact with anyone even those who follow you mutually. All I can say is that's probably a major contributing factor in the decline of Twitter at present. They just refuse to hire moderators to do proper moderation and to make the rules for banning or shadow banning clear and objective. Basically, it's what happens when you let technophiles try to solve a non-technological problem.
I'm not sure why people continue to persist in the idea that AI will magically leap to human and super-human levels of intellect when we have a hard time engineering them to see patterns that it seems the average person can recognize with little training. I'm not suggesting that no such AI can exist but I'm suggesting that we're not at the point of comprehending the components that goes into such an AI (because I think we'll never directly create it but rather build its foundations which then will converge on their own accord and probably by accident).
In any case, I think the key legal problems of current AI and machine learning by extension are related to privacy. We've let such services invade various parts of our lives and we have no legal barriers sufficient to ensure no one's civil rights are violated as a result. So, let's work on those issues before we worry about making the next Colossus or Ultron.
I'm going to say it's unlikely since Zuckerberg and the rest of the Silicon Valley crowd is seen unfavorably especially after Google's flirtation with Obama's administration. At least that's been my observation with my parents and their views. So he has an uphill battle which would be much harder to win than Trump did as Trump had the advantage of voter dissatisfaction in establishment candidates.
I think half the problem with Firefox is that it has a marketing problem. Most folks today just trust Google and so Chrome is a product that has trustworthiness that will stand out for folks especially on the matter of speed/reliability. If Mozilla wants to do anything to save their project then they have to start re/building their brand recognition and trustworthiness among COMMON USERS (technical users tend to inform themselves so it's really not an issue IMO beyond actually talking to us). It'll be an uphill battle all the way but I think they'll find it's worth it.
I don't think my comment implies we ditch digital search indexes. I just think Google as a replacement for properly curated search indexes is the problem here. For general web site searches Google is great but if you're looking for a particular topic it often comes up with sites that aren't even relevant (again my shortwave listening hobby is a great example of this problem). It's pretty hard to work just Google alone when you need a solid base to work from in terms of sites and documents for niche topics. It's why I tend to go back to books for my niche interests. You can't expect Google to handle every possible case because it won't do its primary well.
I think the problem I have with modern election search is that often presented with what I don't want and I have to craft my query to get a decent list of sources. Mind you, this was way back in 2009 at Wichita State but the experience always seem to come up even when I use Google Scholar or equivalent modern search indices. They always seem to be off in terms of accuracy and relevance on the searches (especially now that I'm getting back into shortwave listening, finding articles on antenna theory is like pulling teeth).
It's definitely worrying to me that everyone is going to SaaS on everything since it removes the basic purpose of having a PC or even a smart phone: to do the computing as close to myself as possible. Some things fit SaaS as a natural consequence of their implementation but password managers and image editors aren't good fits for that and they're clearly a cash grab. Eventually, I plan to ditch 1Password when I have the time to find a roughly analogous application (which I've seen a couple but not good enough IMO) since they can't provide local storage for my existing vaults.
You should read Homebrew Industrial Revolution by Kevin Carson, particularly his break down of the Industrial Revolution. Mostly the IR was driven by state actors or those who could influence them such as with the UK's Enclosure Act which forced peasants to work in factories and in the US with the transcontinental railroad which was lobbied for by industrial interests on the East coast who wanted a slice of the West coast pie of regional production/consumption. Basically, everything up to this point is the result of capitalism and its owners who are protected from market forces of regional and local production/consumption which would follow more closely than what we have today where companies literally throw away brand new shoes and electronics to keep their prices high.