Isn't mental instability positively correlated with antisocial, disruptive behavior? I'd imagine that they want well behaved protesters.
81 karma · joined December 21, 2016
Despite there being many poor, segregated communities in the USA, crime is perpetrated by and happens in only a few select communities. In fact, many poor communities thrive because of segregation. In an integrated society, members of the poor communities would be marginalized due to language and cultural barriers because there would not be a support network of people from similar cultural backgrounds. (although the communities where crime is commonplace would benefit from integration by spreading the crime around to different communities instead of keeping it within the community)
Japanese culture and values across all groups are much more homogenous and conducive to a civilized society. People look down upon crimes and value hard work and education.
On the other hand, there are communities in the USA who have values that are not conducive to civilized society and that glorify crime and hedonism and look down on the educated. Coincidentally, these communities also disproportionately contain the perpetrators of crimes.
On the surface level, it appears that the value system of the disruptive groups are the problem because many segregated, poor groups can live in civilized peace. Segregation itself is not a problem.
Everything points to the malfunctioning culture and value system of specific groups in the USA. Integration may help in so much as it dilutes the toxicity of the culture and value system of these groups.
On the disparate power dynamic, I doubt the males with power care about the wellbeing of the other 99.99% of males. They will look out for the interests of super high class males which may not overlap with the interests of lower class males.
I think that non high class females benefit much more than non high class males from the power of super high class males. The super high class males will spend time around females and make transfer payments in the services industry. Sugar babes, prostitutes, strippers, webcaming, regular waitresses, etc. They are more likely to enjoy the wealth of high power males and have a much easier time forming a relationship (romantic or platonic) with a super high class male.
Yeah because lower class women do much better compared to lower class men. The study is flawed. It used male hobbies for both males and females. Rich females don't generally sail. I think their stereotypical activity would be humanitarian efforts.
And if it wasn't flawed, what conclusions do you draw from the study? Lower class women did 5 times better than lower class men. The lower class is many times larger than the upper class, so only a tiny percent of men enjoy the the upper class privilege while most men are doing terribly.
Looking at the big picture by aggregating the lower and upper class, women do better than men.
> http://gender.stanford.edu/news/2014/why-does-john-get-stem-....
I'll give this some legitimacy but it's one study and not completely convincing. It can't be generalized outside of science research positions.
One bias that I'm concerned about is that most gendered social experiments are hoping to find bias against females. It's a big echo chamber as the manifesto guy would say.
Asian/Indian males and females who can barely speak english says otherwise. You can't just drop this controversial statement without any proof
What if all you are achieving is rearranging the dirt (ignore the negative connotations to dirt)?
Skilled URM engineers who meet the Google hiring bar will find a place to work regardless of outreach efforts. The URM outreach efforts will just shift the talented URMs from other companies to its company.
Citation needed and it needs to be relevant in a liberal tech company environment.
Please stop making these unqualified statements on very touchy subjects
Phrasing it more honestly and straightforward would be heresy in a corporate environment.
It's ridiculous how many times I see this dropped out of nowhere in this thread without any sources or proof.
This is a very contentious statement on a two sided issue.
It is similar to proclaiming that minimum wage increases will always lower job opportunities without any proof.
Actually, diversity initiatives can decrease cultural diversity in tech. Many diversity initiatives leave immigrants behind and mainly benefit Americans.
It can be said that foreigners are considered more "culturally diverse" than Americans in USA based workplaces. Diversity programs might increase gender and racial diversity, but also decrease foreign representation as a result and make a company less culturally diverse.
The general perception is that programming is a socially isolating, boring, monotonous job where you stare at a screen all day.
People making career choices don't know about the lax environment.
So tech completely aligns with what he/she wrote.
edit: and your sarcasm is hostile
The thing is, if you don't believe those assumptions, you will view the the unconscious bias and diversity programs as discriminatory. And many people don't believe those assumptions. They see companies discriminating against them and they don't like it.
The company and its employees have very publicly political. This is the trend for most of the big tech companies. I wish they were much less political and the companies chose more moderate viewpoints.
I've seen these arguments rehashed over and over by the very same people who overly critcized the manifesto.
Yet I have never seen any argument or document written as well as the manifesto supporting these arguments.
Does your recruitment process have a 0% false positive rate? If not, giving more opportunities will yield more false positives unless it's proven that the extra opportunities have a 0% false positive rate.
Are these a huge improvement from what was offered previously?