De Sunday Papers

at

 

More to folly

234 thoughts on “De Sunday Papers

    1. Kenny U-Vox Plank

      You don’t expect the Irish MSM to cover this do you and risk their search rankings, easy news sources, and pro-millennial gentrification narrative do you?

      1. Nigel

        Hmm. D’you suppose the offense might arise from a man trying to ‘science’ (Women are neurotic! IQ and race! It’s science!) away discrimination in the tech sector, a dubious approach at best, but one which spectacularly fails to address the various accounts of women’s appalling experiences in said industry.

        ‘the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences).’

        Since science concerning biological differences between races and sexes has been used to justify slavery, colonialism, oppression and genocide, from the European Great Powers to Nazi Germany to Stalinist Russia, you can be damn sure anyone justifying or explaining away any unequal treatment of people of different races or sexes (or sexual orientation) is going to be met with EXTREME skepticism and. yes, anger, by people who have, historically, every reason to feel threatened by it. I like how his scientific footnotes have no scientific references.

        Here’s a different variety of kerfuffle that didn’t victimise a poor oppressed white male professional who said something stupid and thereby became a massive freedom of speech rallying cry: what happens when someone suggests a senior Roman official in Roman Britain might have been black:

        https://www.the-tls.co.uk/roman-britain-black-white/

        1. Clampers Outside!

          Nigel doing the lefty offended nonsense as usual and not addressing the content of the screed written by the the Googler at all…

          What are you ranting about…

          As an aside, quick question. are you one of those anti-science nutters who denies IQ as a measure of intelligence…

          1. Nigel

            If you can’t understand what I’m ‘ranting’ about I’m not sure I have much faith in your ability to critically assess the contents of the screed. Besides, I can talk about either the screed or the response to the screed as I like, since both are of interest. Your dismissal of what I wrote without actually engaging with it is also typical.

            ‘As an aside, quick question. are you one of those anti-science nutters who denies IQ as a measure of intelligence…’

            It’s been a while since I’ve looked at that issue. Best I remember, IQ measures intelligence but in a particular, limited way? Useful as a general, guide but not completely definitive? When you start using it as a measure to class other races, or sexes, or entire social groups, as less (or more) intelligent you’re going to get pushback. People still remember the Bell Curve wars.

            Hmm Cursory google suggests there is some scientific basis for arguing that it has been debunked as a measure of intelligence (‘debunked’ might be overstating it here, unless it’s ‘debunked as a definitive measure’):

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

            This seems like a fairly nuanced discussion of the subject – IQ tests can be used and abused:

            https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/what-do-iq-tests-test-interview-with-psychologist-w-joel-schneider/

            Personally, when people start invoking IQ as proof of anything, I start giving them them side-eye – usually it’s a substitute for an appeal to authority.

          2. Clampers Outside!

            You can wide-eye Harvard President for the same stuff. Here’s a column in The Genderian where leftists lose it with him for saying the same thing as the Google employee.

            Please note that the piece makes no attempt to refute the Harvard President but just waffles on about being offended.

            Facts are sexist type argumentation.

            Why women are poor at science, by Harvard president

            https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jan/18/educationsgendergap.genderissues?

            I’ve more :)

          3. Nigel

            Posted a reply but it’s gone into moderation – because of links? Anyway, for all I know Broadsheet Towers will remain empty until after the long weekend, so… call back on Tuesday for my deathless take? Unless it turns up beforehand, in which case, thank you Broadsheet Towers! Workin’ overtime!

          4. Clampers Outside!

            BTW are you a blank slatist Nigel? Do you believe that men and women have biological differences or do you believe in feminisms contention of the all powerful blank slate / social construction?

          5. Nigel

            My mistake for thinking you were capable of holding one end of a conversation like a grown-up.

          6. Nigel

            Oh Lawrence Summers? What’s to refute? He made speculative assertions that women are genetically intellectually inferior to men. Do you think women are genrtically infetior to men when it comes to intelligence? You okay with one group of people declaring themselves genetically intellectually superior to another? That always goes well.

          7. Nigel

            ‘Do you believe that men and women have biological differences or do you believe in feminisms contention of the all powerful blank slate / social construction?’

            Just imagine. This is a tiny hint of the sort of utter rancid horsecrap women in tech industries face. Do you think techbro culture arises out of nature or nurture?

          8. Clampers Outside!

            ” Oh Lawrence Summers? What’s to refute? He made speculative assertions that women are genetically intellectually inferior to men. Do you think women are genrtically infetior to men when it comes to intelligence? You okay with one group of people declaring themselves genetically intellectually superior to another? That always goes well. ”

            So, you are anti science Nigel and making assetions about what he said… *slow clap*

            Here’s a piece from The Atlantic on what Lawrence actually said and the motivations of those that got him fired. Not, the assertion you make, that “women are genetically intellectually inferior to men.”
            What he said was according to the piece, was “that innate male-female differences might possibly help explain why so many mathematics, engineering, and hard-science faculties remain so heavily male. ” – https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/

            He got bullied out of his job by idealogues like you Nigel.

            Then, there’s the Slate piece whch gives a very clear telling of what was actiually said by Lawrence: ” To begin with, let’s clarify what Summers said. He spoke after the morning session of a conference called “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce: Women, Underrepresented Minorities, and their S. & E. Careers.” He offered three possible reasons for this gender gap. The biggest, he suggested, was that fewer mothers than fathers are willing to spend 80 hours a week away from their kids. The next reason was that more boys than girls tend to score very high or very low on high-school math tests, producing a similar average but a higher proportion of scores in the top percentiles, which lead to high-powered academic careers in science and engineering. The third factor was discrimination by universities. Summers said repeatedly that Harvard and other schools should work to eliminate discrimination. But he theorized that it was less a decisive factor than the others, since women were already underrepresented by the time they got to the pool of candidates eligible for top science jobs.”

            Lawrence was fired because people didn’t like what he said, not because what he said had no scientific basis. In other words, these regressives shut down ideas that dont fit their view.

            He was kicked out not for bad science, but for what the establishment left ‘feels’ were ideas that jarred with their ideological beliefs… ie, anti-science.

            Here’s another piece on what Summers ACTUALLY SAID including link to the transcript – https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/02/18/summers2_18
            On the question of aptitude for science, Summers said this: “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes — height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability — there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means — which can be debated — there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top 25 research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it’s not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it’s talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out.”

            From New Republic – Stephen Pinker clarifies what Lawrence ACTUALLY SAID – https://newrepublic.com/article/68044/sex-ed:
            “Summers did not, of course, say that women are “natively inferior,” that “they just can’t cut it,” that they suffer “an inherent cognitive deficit in the sciences,” or that men have “a monopoly on basic math ability,” as many academics and journalists assumed.”
            Pinker then goes on to explain what he did say.

            Thats the Lawrence scandal out of the way. You Nigel need to read behind the intentionally misleading surface stories of what idealogues and those with something to gain from his dismissal are saying, when it is clear Lawrence did not say the things you assert.
            Stop reading ideological echo chamber claptrap, it’ll be for your own good.

            Further, and this is important, this bit (from the Inside Higher Ed link above) explains what was said by Lawrence and where he got his info from…
            “On the question of aptitude for science, Summers said this: “It does appear that on many, many different human attributes — height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability — there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means — which can be debated — there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population. And that is true with respect to attributes that are and are not plausibly, culturally determined. If one supposes, as I think is reasonable, that if one is talking about physicists at a top 25 research university, one is not talking about people who are two standard deviations above the mean. And perhaps it’s not even talking about somebody who is three standard deviations above the mean. But it’s talking about people who are three and a half, four standard deviations above the mean in the one in 5,000, one in 10,000 class. Even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out.”

            That.s the Lawrence bit out of the way.

          9. Clampers Outside!

            I’ll put your whole quote in with the bit from myself:

            ” ‘Do you believe that men and women have biological differences or do you believe in feminisms contention of the all powerful blank slate / social construction?’
            Just imagine. This is a tiny hint of the sort of utter rancid horsecrap women in tech industries face. ”

            What horsecrap Nigel? You need to explain what you have an issue with.
            All you are doing here is saying that you think this is rancid horsecrap. This is just your opinion, nothing more.
            I take it from that, that you DO NOT believe in any genetic or biological differences between men and women as clearly you think to suggest such is a ‘rancid’ thought that should be shutdown and stamped out.

            That’s anti-science right there pet.
            And gives call for *another slow clap*

            – – – –

            Nigel asks – ” Do you think techbro culture arises out of nature or nurture? ” Both.
            Why do you ask?

          10. Nigel

            What’s horsepoopoo, rancid stinking steaming horsepoopoo, is the idea that if women aren’t constantly expending time and energy justifying their existence in an industry or field not because of their experience or qualifications but because of their very genetic (or ‘innate’) suitability, they are ‘anti-science.’

            Summers said nothing scientific. He made a stupid blunder as a public administrator, antagonising and insulting professionals in his employ and elsewhere. Why do some people think they are not accountable for the things they say?

            ‘Both.’

            I myself would hesitate to say (without a deep study of the science involved, which I’m not prepared to do for the purposes of an online discussion with someone who declares disagreement to be ‘anti-science!’ ) that being a misogynistic dickhead is some sort of innate or genetic part of being male, but okay.

            So, at the heart of your thing about this screed is the idea that people who do not accept his declarations about ‘science’ as absolute and correct and self-evident (note, no actual scientific references in the screed) are anti-science? If psychology/genetics/biological differences therefore fixed innate traits in genders? If IQ therefore other races less intelligent? These must not be questioned? If I question whether women are unsuited to working in the tech industry i must somehow be going all in for the ‘blank slate’ theory? I wouldn’t call your approach here ‘anti-science’ (throwing the label around so enthusiastically as you do pretty much shows you’re not really engaging in good faith) but you’re deceiving yourself if you think you’re discussing this scientifically.

          11. Clampers Outside

            What’s horsepoopoo, rancid stinking steaming horsepoopoo, is the idea that if women aren’t constantly expending time and energy justifying their existence in an industry or field not because of their experience or qualifications but because of their very genetic (or ‘innate’) suitability, they are ‘anti-science.’

            That would be horsepoopoo indeed. Who said that Nigel? No one in this thread… accept you, in fairness…

            “Summers said nothing scientific.” Stephen Pinker disagrees.

            ” He made a stupid blunder as a public administrator, antagonising and insulting professionals in his employ and elsewhere. Why do some people think they are not accountable for the things they say? ” What makes you think he didn’t. How did he “antagonising and insulting professionals ” when he, according to all the links I provided hedid not say anything that is not backed up by science? Agan i’ll take Pinker’s view. You on the other hand have gone down the facts hurt my feelings route which is, anti-science. Feels are not science. Feels do not trump facts. Again, see links above.

            ‘Both.’ – Yes, both Nigel. And everyday we find out that genetics plays a bigger and bigger role than feminists and gender studies *cough* scholars purport.purport.

            (You might want to look up the fact that the vast majority of gender studies “scholars” reject the scientific method. I’ll get you a link on that later)

            ” I myself would hesitate to say ….that being a misogynistic booboohead is some sort of innate or genetic part of being male, but okay. ”
            That’s good Nigel, because you’d be the only one saying it if you did.

            ” So, at the heart of your thing about this screed is the idea that people who do not accept his declarations about ‘science’ as absolute and correct and self-evident are anti-science? ”
            Nigel, he didn’t say that, which you have asserted. Nor did I have a ‘thing’ about it. Please stick to what I said, and what the Googler said, that is, stop projecting your interpretation, it’s wrong and hyperbolic.

            ” If psychology/genetics/biological differences therefore fixed innate traits in genders? ” – no one said this. You did.

            ” If IQ therefore other races less intelligent? ” – You said this. Not sure what it means in fairness.

            ” These must not be questioned? ” – Even when this part of your piece is read as an entire paragraph, this sentence makes no sense in the middle of it… please advise what it is you are trying to say.

            ” If I question whether women are unsuited to working in the tech industry i must somehow be going all in for the ‘blank slate’ theory? ” – no one said women are not suited. Not even the Googler. You appear to believe someone did, please do tell whom?

            ” I wouldn’t call your approach here ‘anti-science’ (throwing the label around so enthusiastically as you do pretty much shows you’re not really engaging in good faith) but you’re deceiving yourself if you think you’re discussing this scientifically. ” – Sorry Nigel, but I am engaging in good faith. When people dismiss scientific method and replace it with feels and postmodernist thinking they are acting against science, ie anti-science.I am not deceiving myself or anyone else. I do not throw this about lightly, thank you.

            Again, I’ve just spent time pulling your rants apart… and the same conclusion is that they are more accusation than anything else Nigel. I guess the topic may be “triggering” for you or something.

            Almost done.

          12. Lord Snowflakee

            @ LW

            I’m still waiting for one peer reviewed cite, even one!

            I guess I’ll be waiting a while

            In the meantime this guy really nails it:

            The manifesto tells us what we already knew: that a subsection of white men feel threatened and insecure. Everyone likes to feel they have achieved their lot in life on their own merit. It is a cause of profound insecurity for this to be challenged – to be forced to confront the idea you are partly where you are because life has been rigged in your favour (and what is more convenient than to appeal to biology to explain inequality? It’s fate rather than injustice, the comforting argument goes). And that’s why, incidentally, Google – like so many other companies – is disproportionately run by men from privileged backgrounds: because of odds stacked in their favour going back generations.

            the truth is they are so angry because they know, in the end, they are going to lose.

            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/google-sexist-memo-alt-right-martyr-james-damore?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=238572&subid=11485653&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

          13. Nigel

            Then ypu shouldn’t have any issues with his employer dealing with his behaviour as they deem fit.

        2. Nigel

          Hang on: are you defending the substance of the screed? The idea that women are scientifically proven to be inferior when it comes to working in tech? And the IQ thing: are you agreeing with his assertion that it shows other races to be less intelligent?

          If you were not white and/or a woman would you be comfortable working with someone who held these opinions about you? If you were in HR would you be happy that an employee wrote and circulated these opinions about their fellow employees? Why the focus on conttovetsy around IQ when their appears to be a culture of pseudo-scientific rationales for excluding women and non-whites in one of the biggest, most successful, most influential – and supposedly ‘liberal’- tech companies in the world?

          1. Clampers Outside!

            ” Hang on: are you defending the substance of the screed? The idea that women are scientifically proven to be inferior when it comes to working in tech? ”

            Read earlier comments, this is not what the Googlers so called ‘screed’ says.

            ” And the IQ thing: are you agreeing with his assertion that it shows other races to be less intelligent? ” – As stated above, that’s not the assertion being made.

            – – – –

            ” If you were not white and/or a woman would you be comfortable working with someone who held these opinions about you? ”
            No, because that person would be a bit thick clearly for having misinterpreted what is actually said. Also, I am aware that the standard deviation swings are higher within groups than the differences between groups.
            So, if the person I worked with held an assertion as you stated, I’d correct them for their ignorance.

            ” If you were in HR would you be happy that an employee wrote and circulated these opinions about their fellow employees? ”

            This next bit is conspiracy theory stuff Nigel…
            ” Why the focus on conttovetsy around IQ when their appears to be a culture of pseudo-scientific rationales for excluding women and non-whites in one of the biggest, most successful, most influential – and supposedly ‘liberal’- tech companies in the world? ”

            Someone tell Google that Nigel said that he sees a culture of discrimination at Google that prevents the hiring of women and people of colour….. I’d be laughing now only I think this pure hyperbolic claptrap of yours is very very sadly blinkered with ideology.
            You need to back up claims like that… makes you sound ridiculous. You’ve basically called Google a racist and sexist company in its hiring policy… LOL!

            Google, according to Nigel has “a culture of pseudo-scientific rationales for excluding women and non-whites”
            #Facepalm

          2. Nigel

            I did read the screed. Those are his arguments. (Well the IQ thing was an aside in a footnote, but hoo boy the assumptions within that footnote.)

            You’d correct. You wouldn’t accept correction or critique yourself. You;d assume the person was being thick not that you might be operating on a tone of mistaken assumptions, not the least of which might be your grasp of the various scientific issues you throw around?

            Like screed guy, you think you’re immune to other people’s interpretation of the implications of your words
            Having said that: you think a culture within a place is a conspiracy?(I said nothing about ‘the hiring’ of anyone, by the way. Google’s HR seem to recognise what an embarrassing pile of arrogant entitlement the screed is.) You think the screed can’t be taken as an indication of the sort of culture that exists within the company at some level and to some extent?
            Have you by any chance sought out any accounts of the experiences of women working withing tech in general and Google specifically?

          3. Clampers Outside

            ” You’d correct. You wouldn’t accept correction or critique yourself. You;d assume the person was being thick not that you might be operating on a tone of mistaken assumptions, not the least of which might be your grasp of the various scientific issues you throw around? ”

            Ad hominem
            Next.

            ” Like screed guy, you think you’re immune to other people’s interpretation of the implications of your words ”
            That’s ridiculous. I do not think that. You think you give critique and all you do is play the man.
            Next.

            ” Having said that: you think a culture within a place is a conspiracy? ” – No. Where did you pull that from Nigel… baffling assertion to make.

            ” (I said nothing about ‘the hiring’ of anyone, by the way. Google’s HR seem to recognise what an embarrassing pile of arrogant entitlement the screed is.) ” – Sorry… I have no clue what this is about. Plse provide more info, i think this may have been intended for someone else…. or something..
            Next

            ” You think the screed can’t be taken as an indication of the sort of culture that exists within the company at some level and to some extent? ” – You asset an awful lot Nigel. Where did I say this nonsense, thanks.
            Next

            ” Have you by any chance sought out any accounts of the experiences of women working withing tech in general and Google specifically? ” – Yes. Much of it, not all, is about how women feel in tech and has nothing to compare to as the researchers, usually with an agenda, never interview the men. If you have an unbiased research study on this, that interviews both genders (there are 2, not 52+ as facebook believes), please do post it here. Would love to see it, thanks.

          4. Clampers Outside

            Update for you Nigel: The citations to research were removed from the Googlers original piece. I’ve no idea why Gzmodo would do this …but I do know that Gizmodo is owned by regressive media outlet Gawker, who owns the misandrist website Jezebel.
            If Gizmodo has an agenda, it’d be no surprise… would it :) Hope that sorts out your contention that research was used.

            Sources: various, including Quillette.

          5. Nigel

            Dear God. You really were better off not trying to hold up one end of a conversation like an adult.

            ‘Who said that Nigel?’

            I did.

            ‘accept you,’

            There, you knew all along who said it.

            ‘Feels do not trump facts’

            And the fact is he antagonised professional women by saying they may be innately inferior to men, which was incredibly unprofessional of him.

            ‘And everyday we find out that genetics plays a bigger and bigger role than feminists and gender studies *cough* scholars purport.purport’

            So every day we find out that women are genetically inferior to men and are not suited to work in tech and the sciences?

            ‘That’s good Nigel, because you’d be the only one saying it if you did.’

            So when you say ‘both’ you don’t actually mean ‘both.’ My faith in your ability to parse scientific issues grows with leaps and bounds.

            ‘Please stick to what I said, and what the Googler said’

            I am . (Well, what the Googler said. You mostly shout and wave your arms and accuse people of being anti-science and stuff with no particularly coherence. It’s even difficult to be sure what points your links are specifically supposed to be illustrating, because you don’t make many points.)

            ‘no one said this. You did.’

            It is literally the Googler’s thesis. Which you seem to be defending? I think? Or something?

            ‘You said this. Not sure what it means in fairness.’

            Yeah… admittedly this was a footnote, but I assumed you comprehended it because of your ranting about IQ test skepticism in the Gizmodo comments. I’m not sure you really read the screed very closely?

            ‘please advise what it is you are trying to say.’

            I’m saying I don’t think the Googler has as much of a handle on the science as he seems to think he does. I know you don’t. Therefore I wouldn’t be screeching ‘anti-science’ at others so easily.

            ‘no one said women are not suited. Not even the Googler.’

            Oh, so it wasn’t an anti-diversity screed? Fair enough, let’s call the whole thing off.

            ‘When people dismiss scientific method’

            Oh, excuse me. Where did ‘scientific method’ appear in the screed? That I definitely didn’t see.

            ‘I guess the topic may be “triggering” for you or something.’

            Well you certainly did something, but don’t you think this is a cheap and lazy attempt to deligitimise your interlocutor by intimating some sort of irrational emotional response? I can’t imagine why you’d want to be the sort of person who relies on that sort of trollish argumentative strategy rather than honest debate.

            Moving on:

            ‘Ad hominem
            Next.’

            It was a direct response to your previous statement, and related directly to it. If you don’t have an answer, you don’t have an answer, try not to embarrass yourself using terms you clearly don’t understand. ( I know this is your idea of ‘taking my arguments apart’ but seriously, the Monty Python argument sketch is a better illustration of how an argument works than this.)

            ‘That’s ridiculous. I do not think that.’

            You’ve been dismissing or ignoring my interpretations of both the Googler’s and your words with no real substantive engagement with my arguments.

            ‘No. Where did you pull that from Nigel… baffling assertion to make’

            I said the screed was indicative of a culture. You started going on about a conspiracy theory. You tell me where you pulled it from.

            ‘Plse provide more info, i think this may have been intended for someone else…. or something..’

            At the Gizmodo link. Which you provided. Oh boy.

            ‘Where did I say this nonsense, thanks.’

            I said it was indicative of a culture. You seemed to disagree.

            ‘Much of it, not all, is about how women feel in tech and has nothing to compare to as the researchers, usually with an agenda, never interview the men.’

            What would interviewing the men achieve? If you want to find out about women’s experiences in anything, why would you need to interview men? Is it hard to for men to speak out in the tech industry? Are you dismissing women’s accounts at face value, or just creating an arbitrary condition for their truthfulness?

            Respond if you like, but I’m off, so don’t do it on my account.

          6. Nigel

            ‘Hope that sorts out your contention that research was used.’

            Okay, fair enough.

            ‘the misandrist website Jezebel.’

            Aw sweet diddums.

          7. Clampers Outside

            “antagonised” …wtf

            Response: The Googler “antagonized” nobody Nigel. Do u know what antagonised means? Are these ‘professionals’ not capable of remaining calm when hearing differing opinions? You suggest they are not, when you say they were antagonised. Are they snowflakes or something… I do wonder.

            – – – –

            ‘And everyday we find out that genetics plays a bigger and bigger role than feminists and gender studies *cough* scholars purport.purport’
            So every day we find out that women are genetically inferior to men and are not suited to work in tech and the sciences?

            Response: That is hilarious how you intentionally misread and misinterpret what was said. That’s pretty grasping in fairness. The only person on this page that has even suggested “women are genetically inferior” is…. you Nigel. I dont believe it, and neither does the Googler. You should read it again as your comprehension skills seem off.

            – – – – –

            ” So when you say ‘both’ you don’t actually mean ‘both.’ My faith in your ability to parse scientific issues grows with leaps and bounds. ”

            Response: No Nigel, genes and environment ‘both’ have an effect.

            – – – – –
            ‘Please stick to what I said, and what the Googler said’
            I am .

            response: See above, you clearly are not. Just saying it doesn’t make it so pet.

            – – – – –

            You mostly shout and wave your arms and accuse people of being anti-science and stuff with no particularly coherence.

            Response: No Nigel I said quite coherently that feels are not science, and post modernism rejects the scientific method, as do gender scholars whom you clearly are on side with in this… LOL.

            – – – – –

            I’m saying I don’t think the Googler has as much of a handle on the science as he seems to think he does. I know you don’t. Therefore I wouldn’t be screeching ‘anti-science’ at others so easily.

            Response: LOL… have you found him yet… I think you’ll find the Googler is well qualified, if the guy i found online is he. I believe

            – – – – –
            ‘no one said women are not suited. Not even the Googler.’
            Oh, so it wasn’t an anti-diversity screed? Fair enough, let’s call the whole thing off.

            Response: Nigel? Stick to what I said. Your response above does not address anything. Its completely meaningless hotair. Your using broad statements to answer specifics.
            I’ll ask again – will you show where he says women are not suited to tech? Please try to respond to what I asked.

            – – – – –

            ‘When people dismiss scientific method’
            Oh, excuse me. Where did ‘scientific method’ appear in the screed? That I definitely didn’t see.

            Response: Not you Nigel, but the gender studies loons who were triggered by the piece. They do dismiss the scientific method and are vocal about doing so. Look it up.

            – – – – –

            ‘I guess the topic may be “triggering” for you or something.’
            Well you certainly did something, but don’t you think this is a cheap and lazy attempt to deligitimise your interlocutor by intimating some sort of irrational emotional response? I can’t imagine why you’d want to be the sort of person who relies on that sort of trollish argumentative strategy rather than honest debate.

            Response: Accuse, accuse, accuse…of trolling…. meh. I have repeatedly pointed to where you are waffling and making accusations. This is why I believe you were being ‘irrational’, as you have called it. ‘Knee-jerk’ would be closer to the notion of being ‘triggered’ than ‘irrational’, in fairness. Although there are elements of irrationality to your responses, I at that time was only laughing at your triggering.

            – – – – –

            ‘Ad hominem
            Next.’
            It was a direct response to your previous statement, and related directly to it. If you don’t have an answer, you don’t have an answer, try not to embarrass yourself using terms you clearly don’t understand. ( I know this is your idea of ‘taking my arguments apart’ but seriously, the Monty Python argument sketch is a better illustration of how an argument works than this.)

            Response: “You did x… You did y… You did z…. ” is all that you said. All saying stuff that was not done, only you say it was and dont give evidence.
            I’ll take that as attacking the man, whether you understand it or not.
            I have no idea what you are on about in the bracketed Monty Python text above.

            – – – – –

            ‘That’s ridiculous. I do not think that.’
            You’ve been dismissing or ignoring my interpretations of both the Googler’s and your words with no real substantive engagement with my arguments.

            Response: I have responded IN DETAIL numerous times now. If there is anything in particular you wish me to respond to, please do let me know. I will happily oblige.

            – – – – –
            You tell me where you pulled it [conspiracy] from.

            Response: I got it from this paranoid piece of yours – ” appears to be a culture of pseudo-scientific rationales for excluding women and non-whites ” at Google
            This IS conspiracy theory stuff Nigel.

            – – – – –

            What would interviewing the men achieve? If you want to find out about women’s experiences in anything, why would you need to interview men? Is it hard to for men to speak out in the tech industry? Are you dismissing women’s accounts at face value, or just creating an arbitrary condition for their truthfulness?
            Respond if you like, but I’m off, so don’t do it on my account.

            Response 1: What would interviewing the men achieve? A full picture of all workers experiences. Then you have something to compare to when you single out women. Why is this necessary? There’s a whole video on this which I’ll find shortly – after posting this. And it’s based on an analysis of a STEM study that looked at only women, and ignored the men n that lab. I’ll post when done. You’ll learn quite a bit.

            Response 2: If you want to find out about women’s experiences in anything, why would you need to interview men? Because to know if those experiences are different you need something to compare them to. Again, the vid will explain this.

            Response 3: Is it hard to for men to speak out in the tech industry? Compared to women obviously…. well, considering the tech industry is dominated by men, then as a group clearly men would have a bigger voice, just like female nurses have a bigger voice in that industry and in veterinary practice and whatever other industry / job that they dominate.
            As individuals, I’d say men and women have their own voices and have varying degrees of being heard depending on their tier level in the company or industry they are in.

            Response 4 (and 4.1): “Are you dismissing women’s accounts at face value…? ” Nope.
            “or just creating an arbitrary condition for their truthfulness? ” Nope.

            – – – – –

            That was fun :)

          8. Clampers Outside

            Here’s that biased STEM study published in Harvard Business Review –
            https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-5-biases-pushing-women-out-of-stem

            The clearly biased researchers claim 6 biases that push women out of stem.

            Here’s the video critique of the report I mentioned earlier (start from 4mins54secs to go straight to the start of her analysis of the “study” which is as Janice says “a pathetic piece of propaganda”.

            In this you’ll find out why only asking only women makes the study useless and only of use to sexist feminist propagandists. Enjoy !

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j3wYJGkVE0

          9. Clampers Outside!

            This is for you Nigel… Four scientists respond to the Googler’s memo:

            https://twitter.com/QuilletteM/status/894727012794777601

            If the link in the tweet doesn’t work after you click the above, which it might not, because so many people are reading it, and it has crashed their server…. here’s an archive of the piece….

            https://archive.is/z6xxP

            Lack of science was your argument Nigel. This shows the Googler had plenty of knowledge of his subject, he had done his research, which is backed up by these scientists – including some whom had been cited by the Googler in his memo. Evidence which Gizmodo stripped out of the original memo… One can only assume to make the Googler look bad, and set off idealoguess who dont like facts that upset their simpleton ideology… people, it would appear, just like you. Science deniers.

            I look forward to hearing if you still maintain your position with the regressives who attacked the Googler after reading this.
            It’s hard Nigel when facts are true and your position is not. A lesson in science denial and how one should avoid being sucked into group think as you have clearly displayed, sadly…

          10. Clampers Outside!

            And he’s just been fired!

            That’s a win for regressives, a win for ideology, a win for groupthink, a win for simpletons, a win for authoritarians, a win for science deniers….. it’s a sad day.

          11. LW

            It’s really a win for you though Clampers, you’ll be able to harp on about this for months, if not years

          12. Lord Snowflakee

            Wow we know someone kind of like this

            http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/07/542020041/google-grapples-with-fallout-after-employee-slams-diversity-efforts

            Addressing the engineer who wrote the document, Zunger wrote, “If you hadn’t written this manifesto, then maybe we’d be having a conversation about the skills you need to learn to not be blocked in your career — which are precisely the ones you described as ‘female skills.'”

            As for the author’s feeling that their views couldn’t be discussed openly, Zunger called the author’s views “fundamentally corrosive” to any organization.

            Another response came from software developer Sarah Mei, who devoted a string of tweets to criticize both the document and the way its argument was presented.

            “This guy almost certainly thinks of himself as a ‘computer scientist’, but he does exactly what you’re not supposed to do as a scientist,” Mei wrote. “He draws a conclusion favorable to his ego, and then works backwards from there, constructing an argument to justify it.”

            In another tweet, Mei said, “This google dude literally works at the company that made it _trivially easy_ to locate relevant social science research.”

          13. Clampers Outside!

            author, James Damore, has Bachelor of Science in Biology, Physics and Chemistry + PHD in Systems Biology from Harvard

            – – – –

            You took part in your first(?) successful regressive witch hunt Nigel.

            You are a true regressive science denier now, well done, you must be so thrilled to have taken part in a regressive witch hunt to get a guy fired for thinking differently and backing up his ideas with science and facts.

            If that’s not a description of an idiot regressives’ actions, I don’t what is.

            *slow clap for simpleton like groupthinkers*

            You must be proud.

          14. Clampers Outside!

            HAH! Seriously Lord Snowflake… you sure pick ’em. That piece is pathetic and doesn’t address the memo.

            I did like this bit of snowflakeiness… Another software engineer who used to work for Google, Kelly Ellis, says some women who still work at the company stayed home on Monday because the memo made them “uncomfortable going back to work.”
            Gossip…. as news. Where’s the analysis of the memo… oh, there is none just bandwagoning.

            * slow clap * for the groupthink

          15. Lord Snowflakee

            Maybe I should have bolded the bits for you that were IMPORTANT Clampers?

            You might need to work on your ‘female skills’ – intuition, tact, attention to detail

            “This guy almost certainly thinks of himself as a ‘computer scientist’, but he does exactly what you’re not supposed to do as a scientist,” Mei wrote. “He draws a conclusion favorable to his ego, and then works backwards from there, constructing an argument to justify it.”

          16. Clampers Outside!

            Hey Nigel, was that you editing the Wikipedia page on ‘Neurotoicism’ last night? :)

            Nevermind, the science is still there, intact:

            ” One study examined sex differences in the Big Five personality traits across 55 nations. It found that, across the 55 nations studied, the most pronounced difference was in neuroticism ”

            So, you were saying Nigel, the Googler was being sexist for saying women tend to be more neurotic than men. Would you like to repeat that, seeing as…

            I see you’re a science denier now, Ted.

            * another slow clap *

          17. Clampers Outside!

            Good man Snowflake…. “He draws a conclusion favorable to his ego, and then works backwards from there, constructing an argument to justify it.”

            That’s just some randomers opinion. Just like yours or mine.

            I’ll stick with the facts and science, thanks. You dont need an opinion when the facts and science demonstrate the truth.

          18. Lord Snowflakee

            As the other commenters noted on the original thread I posted, in reference to the engineer author, you’re also unfamiliar with the concept of the scientific method.By it’s nature the scientific method is inherently disprovable.

            Good physical science work is not declaratory, but merely says here is how I got to the results I present, here is my methodology, and you are welcome to try my trials and see if you get the same result or similar. Also there is a concept called critical analysis in all proper science work, something you completely appear to lack. This is where you say, well here are the flaws in my thinking, or possible flaws, or how my study could be improved. Good science in other words relies on the humility of the authors, not in their hubris. (Most HBR articles fail on this basic tenet).

            You merely cite a load of things and scream ‘look! look! look! this proves it!’, a bit like my ten year old (two years ago). (He’s twelve now and has grown out of this phase thankfully).

            For example you said that “I’ll stick with the facts and science, thanks. You dont need an opinion when the facts and science demonstrate the truth.”

            Obviously I haven’t time to read through all of the trolling you’ve done but if I had I’m sure I would find a peer reviewed study there would I? I do see something on HBR, if you would like to explain the methodology and provide an actual cite to the study referred to in that cite, I’ll be glad to review it. Most of your links referred to guys on Twitter, you know like ‘some guys opinion’ :)

            You’re sweet though, I’ll give you that. A bit like an ould dog that has gone blind in one eye but staggers around in the street, vaguely hoping for hugs and biscuits from random passers-by. Nigel is to be commended for petting you and giving you bowls of water.

          19. Clampers Outside!

            LOL!
            “Most” links are to twitter with just opinions. Nope. Only one. Not most.
            Links are to:
            1. The Verge
            2. Guardian
            3. Gizmodo
            4. Youtube – Sam Harris
            5. Youtube – Jordan Peterson
            6. Youtube – Janice Fiamengo
            7. The Atlantic
            8. Inside Higher Ed
            9. New Republic
            10. HBR
            11. archive.ie
            12. Documentcloud

            13.+14. Twitter x 2
            one is a direct link to a very informative thread, from an evolutionary biologist well worth a read, here it is again – https://twitter.com/M_Methuselah/status/894393673387061249 – he backs up his opinions with links to other scientists in the relevant fields of study referred to in the memo. But you call that what you will, he’s using science, objectivity, not feels.

            The other is @Quillette with a direct link to their response with four scientists who agree that the memo is important to break the groupthink, echo-chamber, of the leftist ideology so pervasive in Google.

            Is the rest of your post in need of correction too? 1 out of 14 is a twitter opinion, and that was from an evolutionary biologist who uses links to studies to back himself up.

            Most links were just opinions, you say… what’s 1/14…
            “Most” says ma Lord.
            LOL !

            With regard to the rest of your trolling lecture comment pet. The scientific method has flaws, duh. Any alternative to it to date is worse, so let’s stick with what’s best available, the scientific method.

            With regard to your bit on critical analysis… I never attempted to critically analyse any paper here in this discussion with Nigel. Please don’t project what you think I was doing, and claim I failed in it, when I never even attempted such. After all, you say you never even bothered to read my comments and then lecture me on stuff that had nothing to do with my comments….

            Oh get off the bus will ya, thanks :)

            If you are going to have a go, plse do it better.

          20. Lord Snowflakee

            I asked you to provide some peer reviewed robust academic studies and analysis of their methodologies and instead you posted links about some guys talking on youtube. Got it.

          21. Listrade

            You know me, I like to stick my oar in.

            Couple of points from my own reading. Google fired him for “some of the conclusions” in his memo. To be honest, no matter what research or education he has, presuming to write and publish this manifesto marks him out as a nob.

            The other problem is he too is guilty of confirmation bias. The particular issue is that women (note for clampers his term is “on average” skewing more to one trait. Look at the bell curve, the skew is moderate, not extreme enough to categorise a female trait) tend to have certain traits and that these are not conducive to the tech industry or high status in the tech industry.

            He states that more men are in high power positions because they require long hours that are not family friendly and high stress. Meek wimin can’t do that.

            Here’s the problem. And it’s a big one. The assumption is that success naturally occurs through long unsocial hours and stress rather than this being a construct to give the impression of being a hard worker or successful. Does it really have to be that way or is it just a construct of men caught in a corporate p*ssing competition for decades?

            There are more men in tech. There are more men in tech with higher status. Is the path to success based on what they do or is that genuinely the only way to success? I don’t know, but I do know that “being seen” at a workplace for long hours is still favoured over actual output. Someone spending 12 hours to complete a task a colleague does in 5 isn’t seen as inefficient, they’re seen as committed. The more efficient employee obviously doesn’t have enough to do.

            Of course, I speak in generalisations based on my experience. But so does the author.

            All people are different. Capabilities and how they work is different on an individual level, not race and not gender. That’s where his bell curves are being misused. They are an average, not the norm. A woman may “lack” one average male trait, but “posses” others. It’s a mixed bag. You manage people as people, not as a group.

            Of course men and women are different. We are slaves to biochemistry and hormones. That does not mean we have different capabilities, just different perspectives. I will never spend a whole day ignoring my partner because of some act she carried out in one of my dreams. I however will have to bear the consequences of that particular personality perspective on her part.

            That’s his failure. He links the current means of success, born out of a male dominated workplace, as the only route to success. He doesn’t think for a second that there might be a better way that would be better for everyone. He then uses his own confirmation bias to justify his opinion.

            Google is a pox. It spent decades recruiting clones of Larry and Sergi. You had to have had a montessori education, you had to have gone to an Ivy League school, you had to have done computer engineering and got top marks. For decades. That is immediately exclusive, immediately privileged to the wealthy and the white. But because of Google’s success, this became the recruitment policy of the tech industry and beyond (it even reached WebSummit).

            He’s right in one aspect, Google is very sensitive to it being pointed out how their decades of an elite recruitment process has limited diversity. He’s probably right in that it has resulted in stiffling actual debate as to what to do.

            The path to success in tech or business may be the norm, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t a better way. If he was so open to debate, why didn’t he ask those questions? If he is a humble man being dismissed by virtue signallers, why did his whole manifesto accept this as the norm? He wasn’t interested in debate, he was interested in confirming his own bias.

            It’s so simple. Science proves there are biological differences. Well, I kinda got that bit myself. Science is limited in determining behaviour. It shows an average, but doesn’t show the full distribution. Social science and psychology go someway, but that should all be read with a very cynical mind. Most research is done in the richer american colleges, most studies use students, most students WEIRD (Western, Education, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic, well known issue for psychological studies. Asian studies tend to give different results).

            That’s it. A good manifesto debasing confirmation bias while confirming your own bias. Yeah, let’s have a debate, but on everything, not just what we feel genders are capable of. Let’s have a debate on what individuals are capable of instead.

          22. Clampers Outside!

            ” I asked you to provide some peer reviewed robust academic studies and analysis of their methodologies and instead you posted links about some guys talking on youtube. Got it. ”

            Did you, where? Read your own post, the only question you asked was asked of yourself… “… but if I had I’m sure I would find a peer reviewed study there would I?”

            – – – –

            BTW, your Zunger fella’s piece is a hit piece as he misinterprets from the beginning when he says this nonsense, that he’s read from the Googlers piece ” we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it. ”

            Plse, you cite Zunger, now, plse tell me where the original says that.

            Oh… it doesn’t, does it.

            Again, plse troll better, thanks. Standards in trolls has gone down…

          23. Lord Snowflakee

            I couldn’t have been clearer. What I actually wrote was:

            “if you would like to explain the methodology and provide an actual cite to the study referred to in that cite, I’ll be glad to review it.”

            Instead you’ve come back with a pile of garbage, literally, simply enumerating all the other dodgy-looking sources you previously quoted, and refusing indeed to even engage with the substance of my comment, relating to the scientific method, instead opting only to troll me further with vitriol, while, if you recall, your appeal originally was to “facts and science”, an appeal now clearly shown to be BS>>>

          24. Clampers Outside!

            Hi Listrade, your oar is always welcome :)

            First, lets not use the hyperbolic language of the media and call it what it was …a memo. It was Gizmodo who called it a manifesto :) Or you could have used Mashables’ headline grabber and call it a treatise…
            It’s a memo.

            – – – – –
            Not sure why you are using “other” here…
            ” The other problem is he too is guilty of confirmation bias. The particular issue is that women… tend to have certain traits and that these are not conducive to the tech industry or high status in the tech industry. ”
            Honestly, I don’t see how that proves your claim of confirmation bias… if it does, plse do let me know how so. I’m not saying he has none, I’m just saying I don’t see how that which you have stated proves it.
            Why? For one thing he cites women’s bigger tendency to suffer from neuroticism. This is a fact. Even wikipedia will tell you with tonnes of citations that that is a fact. And on that wikipedia page it says, with research to back the claim, much of that is down to genetics and physiological differences in the brain. According to Quillette, Psychology Today and I’m sure others, there are thousands of studies that back up that.

            – – – – –

            “He states that more men are in high power positions because they require long hours that are not family friendly and high stress. ”
            That’s true of the world we live in, and is borne out through women’s choices when they choose on average less stressful work and less hours, particularly when they pass age 30 / have kids, and do so more than men at any age. Stating this is not sexist. Again, there are loads of studies to back this up.

            ” Meek wimin can’t do that. ” – Your words, not his, as he never used the word “meek”. I agree tho, nobody meek can, man or woman.

            – – – –

            ” The assumption is that success naturally occurs through long unsocial hours and stress rather than this being a construct to give the impression of being a hard worker or successful. Does it really have to be that way or is it just a construct of men caught in a corporate p*ssing competition for decades? ”
            – I too wish it wasn’t that way, who doesn’t, but it’s inevitable, that when a company decides to take the foot off the gas, the company gets surpassed, because if it decides to run in an effort to alleviate all stress and not putting in the long hours, the company wont be long left in the dust. Regardless of whether it is google or a printing company…. in any industry.
            I hope you are not suggesting that he should have put forward an entirely new way for the world to approach work.. That’s not the point of the memo.

            – – – – – –

            Your anecxdote, is just that an anecdote. I can confirm the ‘first car in, last car out of the carpark’ mentality is in many industries the world over. Particularly stressful jobs. Stating this doesn’t add to the debate, nor detract from the memo.

            – – – – – –

            ” All people are different. Capabilities and how they work is different on an individual level, not race and not gender. That’s where his bell curves are being misused. They are an average, not the norm. A woman may “lack” one average male trait, but “posses” others. It’s a mixed bag. You manage people as people, not as a group. ”

            What’s wrong with averages to make a point.

            – – – – –

            ” Of course men and women are different. We are slaves to biochemistry and hormones. That does not mean we have different capabilities, just different perspectives. ” – the science says otherwise.

            ” In conclusion, male cognitive functions (viz: attentional, perceptual, executive and working memory) were comparable to those of the female preovulatory phase cognitive functions. This might be due to the analogous actions of testosterone (male) and oestrogen (female-preovulatory) on the brain. Thus, our study supported the fact that testosterone and oestrogen accentuated cognitive functions in a similar fashion.

            Both males and females (preovulatory phase) can compete with each other equally in cognitive tasks.

            However,
            males outperformed females in attention state (as was assessed by visual reaction time) during the postovulatory phases of their menstrual cycles. This might be due to the effect of testosterone, that favoured males to be more attentive than females.
            But females, during their postovulatory phases, outperformed males in the Stroop test.
            This might be due to the hormone, progesterone that favoured females to properly discriminate the different colours and also able to execute the tasks better than males. This elucidated the fact that in tasks which required fine motor skills, females showed the highest efficiency (in postovulatory phase) as compared to males. For a more generalization of the findings, studies should be conducted in larger populations, along with the estimation of the sex hormone profiles of males and females, to make the results more conclusive.. ”

            The studies limitations:
            ” 1. The cognitive functions were assessed without the estimation of sex hormones.
            2. The ovulation time relied on the basal body temperature.
            3. Sample size of the study was small and therefore, studies need to be done on larger populations, to elucidate the gender differences in cognitive functions.”

            So, the study would have more lucid differences with a larger sample. ie It would be even more concrete about the differences, than the above states.
            Sorry for the use of a long quote, it was the quickest way to make the point… anyway, it concludes there are differing abilities, depending on the test timing. So, there are differences, at particular phases.
            Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/

            – – – – –

            ” That’s his failure. He links the current means of success, born out of a male dominated workplace, as the only route to success. He doesn’t think for a second that there might be a better way that would be better for everyone. ”

            There’ll always be those who will work harder and longer, more of those are men than women. Are you saying there is something intrinsically wrong with men and how they approach work? Are you going to deny that men are competitive and have a drive different to a woman’s? Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it sounds like it. I’ll happily be corrected.

            Please note, this was an internal memo. He’s not trying to reconstruct society and how we work. If he had, it would probably be so far down the line that it would be given a cursory glance and ignored. He made suggestions from within the frame work of how ‘work’ is done, in the company he works for, and made suggestions how that can be tweaked, by getting rid of the companies ideological bias. Of course, he didn’t offer a whole new way to work, which I believe you are trying to suggest he should have done… again, I’m happy to be corrected if I have misread your intention on that para.

            – – – – –

            “Google is a pox.”
            Darn tootin’ !

            You talk about the recruitment policies of tech companies, and how you see it as immediately exclusive.
            If any company wants only the best and brightest for the roles within it, then that company is being exclusive. Not sure what the problem is with wanting the best for the job, especially if the job is awarded on merit.

            As you say here, I do agree… “He’s right in one aspect, Google is very sensitive to it being pointed out how their decades of an elite recruitment process has limited diversity. He’s probably right in that it has resulted in stiffing actual debate as to what to do.”

            – – – – –

            ” Let’s have a debate on what individuals are capable of instead. ” – hear, hear !

            But before one can do that, one would have to change the forced diversity of Google’s ideological bent, which the memo [ not manifesto :) ] does look for.

            – – – –

            Think I’ll spend a while looking to see the differences between WEIRD and Asian studies. I’m sure I saw some meta-analysis that took in studies from around the world last night, which demonstrated the differing capabilities. If I relocate, I’ll post.

            Cheers Listrade, enjoyed that

          25. Listrade

            Clampers the bias is that the requirement for success being long hours and high stress is a natural and correct one. He accepts that as a given/doesn’t challenge it, then uses the data to show why men succeed in that environment. Maybe this is true, but how did that environment originate and who says that it should be the way it is?

            So an environment that has effectively grown up via a male dominated workplace naturally suits men. Well no poop Sherlock. Urinals work great for me, women just need to work on their aim.

            This is the issue with meritocracies, they don’t exist as the odds are stacked to bias a particular group. Rather than fix that, companies, etc, opt for lousy quotas.

            The issue with Google’s recruitment is how it restricts applications to those who can afford Montessori education, can afford good schools, can afford ivy league education. It is based on status not capability. Some kid might have done computer engineering at DIT, but wouldn’t have got a look in. Does that honestly mean they aren’t as capable?

            Therein is the issue, it’s the attempt to clone success or lightning in a bottle. This is how I got successful, so that must be the answer.

            The average person has one testicle and one breast. There’s the problem. The average woman has certain traits, but the average doesn’t actually exist as an entity. They are individuals that skew more one way on something and another way on others. An average is a sweeping generalisation that doesn’t actually describe an individual, let alone form the basis for a memo.

            So overall he has used the evidence to confirm his own bias that Google’s HR policies are wrong. They are wrong. But if he wants debate, why doesn’t he start at the source in how success is measured, managed and rewarded?

            Why assume the current requirements are right and natural? We don’t know because he doesn’t even discuss that.

          26. Clampers Outside!

            “if you would like to explain the methodology and provide an actual cite to the study referred to in that cite, I’ll be glad to review it.”

            OK, find the link you refer to, post here. I’ll have a look for you.

          27. Clampers Outside!

            OK, I see the bias you were commenting on, thanks for clarification of your point.

            Who says that it should be the way it is? I thought you answered that and it was men. Me, I’d go for two answers: Profit margin pressures and HR departments. HR is dominated by what gender? Women. Is that a factor? I dunno.

            This is the issue with meritocracies, they don’t exist as the odds are stacked to bias a particular group. – Presumably women in the industries they dominate and men in the industries they dominate.
            Rather than fix that, companies, etc, opt for lousy quotas. – I agree, quotas are lousy. I’d got further and say affirmative action unchecked is worse than not having it at all.
            Look at egalitarian countries, they dont have issues to the same extent, and the jobs with the requirement of people skills are dominated by women and the jobs dealing with things are dominated by men. Au naturel, non?

            On the Montessori thing… a bunch of colleagues left the ad industry for Google (and FB, & Twitter, etc.). I know for a fact five of them at Google have no Montessori schooling… I think that’s an old thing or an urban myth, but it’s not defacto for recruitment.

            ” They are individuals that skew more one way on something and another way on others. ” Exactly, which is why the diversity approach based on skin pigment, ethnicity or gender is a load of cack.

            “An average is sweeping”, but the guy was using averages to make a point. Not a definitive answer, a point, from which to move to the next step. Diversity on the other hand says it has the answert from the off, and implements quotas. Round peg in a sq hole.

            ” But if he wants debate, why doesn’t he start at the source in how success is measured, managed and rewarded? ” – In fairness, he has got a conversation going about the regressive practices. Maybe his starting point was like a hammer to some, but at least he got that discussion going. And boy did the regressives react in calling him every damned horrid name and expletive under the sun.

            The side he opposes dont want debate.

            They want it their way, and anyone who dissents is a scumbag for dissing the ideology.

            I don’t know where he supposedly says the current setup is natural. I dont think he did.
            He’s made comment on the current in play set up, and offered tweaks to it. The big one being move away from the diversity book and how it is implemented currently.

            Remember, he put out a memo, and got fired as a response. There was no effort to debate from the employer. Or anyone who opposed his views. That’s regressive right there. It’s a horrible precedent, imagine working in Google now, and knowing you could get fired for holding opposing views to colleagues. How are new ideas for a company ever going to be got from an echochamber? A place where everyone thinks the same way. If Google doesn’t change it’ll shoot itself in the foot, and then some.

          28. Nigel

            Annnnd this is a taster, a mere hint of what women in tech have been subjected to because of the fuss over the screed. Bad science badly applied in a ten-page manifesto distributed throughout his part of the company to his fellow employees, who he is discussing as being unsuited to be employed in tech. To say nothing of painting a target on their backs for responding negatively to this rubbish, which you just know has brought out the rape threats and death treats again, not that they ever seem to go far.

            Clampers can’t even follow a discussion he’s taking part in properly (he thinks I was referring to the screeder when I said ‘antagonised’ above – of course it’s true, he did antagonise his fellow employees, but that’s not who I was referring to) yet he expects everyone to jump through hoops to understand the rigorous scientific bolox behind this. The sheer entitlement of the guy and of Clampers. Just because you have an opinion and you’re a man and you invoke science doesn’t mean it deserves to be given the slightest shred of credence or respect or taken the slightest bit seriously. If he’d cranked it out on his blog it’d have disappeared into the morass of a million other MRA-style rants and credos. But he put it on the system at work.

            This is more of the emotional and intellectual labour women have to perform – battling the sheer ego of people like the screeder to justify their existence, and creepy little fanboy enablers like Clampers sending everyone off on tedious pointless gish gallops as if the problem here was a scientific one, when it’s not. Neither Clampers nor the screeder would know the scientific method if it came up and peer-reviewed them. This is a human resources issue. It’s a personnel management issue. it’s an employee conducting themselves in a way that’s unacceptable, circulating a ten page attack on his fellow employees. Can’t IMAGINE why someone who did something like this was fired. Maybe a union could have saved him or gotten him a second chance.

          29. Clampers Outside!

            LOL! This is getting more and more tedious with you ad hominem and boy cow wee wee !

            You are the biggest offender Ive seen on this site for ad hominem.
            GFY pet, and go get a room for yourself and do a rude thing.

          30. Clampers Outside!

            TRIGGER WARNING !

            OMG! That stalwart of regressive boycow wee wee The Genderian said diversity programmes are a waste of time… LOL! I’d read of this before, but didn’t know The Genderian had a report on it :)

            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/27/workplace-ditch-diversity-programmes-google-white-male-corporate-empathy

            I guess The Genderian

            And that lead to this – http://economicsdetective.com/2016/07/costs-ethnic-diversity-garett-jones/

            – – – –

            And back to your comment…
            ” (he thinks I was referring to the screeder when I said ‘antagonised’ above – of course it’s true, he did antagonise his fellow employees, but that’s not who I was referring to) ”
            Seriously? Can’t wait for the answer to this… Who were you referring to Nigel, if not the Google fella?
            – – – –

            ” Clampers can’t even follow a discussion he’s taking part in properly… yet he expects everyone to jump through hoops to understand the rigorous scientific boo boo behind this. ”
            What are you waffling on about?

            – – – – –
            ” The sheer entitlement of the guy and of Clampers. Just because you have an opinion and you’re a man and you invoke science doesn’t mean it deserves to be given the slightest shred of credence or respect or taken the slightest bit seriously. If he’d cranked it out on his blog it’d have disappeared into the morass of a million other MRA-style rants and credos. But he put it on the system at work. ”
            This is what TRIGGERED looks like :) I have no other explanation for it. Anyone?

            – – – – –
            ” This is more of the emotional and intellectual labour women have to perform – battling the sheer ego of people like the screeder to justify their existence, and creepy little fanboy enablers like Clampers sending everyone off on tedious pointless gish gallops as if the problem here was a scientific one, when it’s not. Neither Clampers nor the screeder would know the scientific method if it came up and peer-reviewed them. ”
            And this is what crawling up ones own hole looks like :)

            The guy has a PhD, I’m sure he knows the scientific method.
            Myself, I think my mathematical competency and understanding is fair, all I have to back that is an ‘A’ in Economic Statistics from my BA. Not great, but better than most. It was my only A, sadly. But, no bother.
            Anyway, sure aren’t you a postmodernist, and so reject the scientific method for feels, so what would you know about scientific method anyway :)

            – – –

            I’m done responding to your triggered ad hominems pet.

          31. Listrade

            @ Clampers. Quotas are a bad idea, but all we have until we have a true meritocracy. It’s a lazy way of fixing a problem, it avoids admitting a problem. He accepted the root problem as natural. Funny that he thinks a system that suits men is natural.

            You rail against a system that suits women: child custody, justice, domestic violence. Call out inequality where it exists. It actually strengthens your position when you do. Cherry picking inequality outrage places you alongside the “feminists” you rant about.

            We accept his idea of what engineering involves. His. A case study of one. And he uses his interpretation of sweeping generalisations to prove his idea of what engineering involves. I do my job my way. I get it done. I get it done well. But it’s my way. I don’t judge my colleagues on doing it *their* way, I don’t manage my team based on how I want them to work, I manage them on how *they* are productive. I have never and will never assume my way of doing my work is the natural right way. It’s the way that works for me and that’s it. I am not special. He is not special. We don’t have a magic formula.

            He states this is how engineering works. There are already hundreds of engineers disputing this. We can’t dismiss their views “regressive left”. We can’t dismiss their views as anecdotal as this guy’s whole unasked for memo is anecdotal.

            Two assumptions: The path to success is natural. The traits of an engineer he has are natural. Both suit his hypothesis. He states both as fact and doesn’t challenge. PHD or not, that’s poxy science you always state your assumptions and challenge yourself.

            As Nigel states this as blog post would be fine. But to send out to colleagues who hadn’t asked for it? Jesus.

          32. Nigel

            This is what ‘unable to argue’ looks like. I.know enough about the scientific method to know it’s not a magic spell out of Harry Potter you yell out to make people think your arguments are less stupid.

            I also know you don’t send out ten page manifestos undermining your fellow employees on the company e-mail without getting in trouble.

          33. Clampers Outside!

            ” You rail against a system that suits women: child custody, justice, domestic violence. Call out inequality where it exists. It actually strengthens your position when you do. Cherry picking inequality outrage places you alongside the “feminists” you rant about. ”

            ” You rail against a system that suits women: child custody, justice, domestic violence. ”
            Child custody – is imbalanced, look at the courts results.
            Justice – sorry, but what Listrade are you talking about. That word would encompass the first point, and the next.
            Domestic violence – is an industry dominated by feminist ideology. One which promotes the idea that women are the only victims and men the only perps. Until that ideology is removed from ALL DV services I will have something extremely legitimate to rally against.

            ” Call out inequality where it exists. It actually strengthens your position when you do. ” – So when I marched for abortion rights, what was I doing then…
            When I want a system similar to the Nordic countries with regard to maternity and paternity, what am I doing there. There are issues of equality I do stand by and fight for..

            Just because I shout louder on the issues that I have personal experience with does not make me a cherry picker. It means I’m focused on what I know to be wrong and which promotes inequality.

            – – –

            More men than women are suited to engineering. Are you contesting that fact, that men prefer things, women people? And if men are more suited to things, wouldn’t that make sense that engineering would be dominated by them. There is a natural element to this. It should not be the dominant way that work is done, but to ignore it is ridiculous, and would be regressive.

            Aren’t men more competitive? And isn’t that is a known fact. Men seek status, that’s a known factual drive that pushes men to work harder, longer and endure more stress. From that ‘natural’ tendency comes a lot of work practices we have today. Yes, that can improve, but let’s not go all out and condemn completely as unnatural, when it’s got it’s roots in male psychology, something which you have suggested too.
            It doesn’t mean it is the right environment for everyone, I never said it was. I never said it should stay, and Id love to see work practices change.

            The guy spoke his mind and got fired for it. And what he spoke of can be backed up. Sending out those ideas on a memo to colleagues shouldn’t be a firing offence, and it appears you have no issue with the fact he was fired, Nigel certainly doesn’t.

            That’s some contradiction, is it not? You rally against the memo and a guy speaking his mind, and yet you think that work practices should change, which is what he asked for…. at least he’s making an effort, whether the ideas are palatable or not when being put forward is not reason to shoot them before they are heard – or fire the person before a discussion that has a lot of scientific backing. If you go down that route all in the company will eventually be afraid to speak up.

            I don’t believe all disagreements with the memo are regressive. I believe the condemnation, demonisation, and bandwagoning tirade of bullpee from the like of Nigel as regressive. He’s a cheerleader for regressive leftist authoritarianism, a foolish child of a man.

            Look at his comments Listrade, demented garbled nonsense half of them. Nigel’s still calling it a manifesto. You do know why he does that, it’s to delegitimise, no other reason. That’s a regressive. Anyone who is calling it a manifesto or treatise is doing that to make the writer look like a loon. That much is plain and simple, and when so much mass media are also doing so, then I think it fair to call out the wide ranging regressive attitudes towards the guy.

            You may want to note that CNN were calling it a manifesto until the guy lawyered up, and they then changed headlines to remove ‘manifesto’ from them….why do you think they did that? I believe it’s because they know what they did was completely WRONG.
            Nigel is still at it this morning…
            – – – –

            ” Quotas are a bad idea, but all we have until we have a true meritocracy. It’s a lazy way of fixing a problem, it avoids admitting a problem.. ”

            Yes, quotas are a bad idea, but it’s not all we have. We can try to fix the problem. We can raise issues, ask questions, condemn what we can see as bad practices and make suggestions and put forward ideas…. or write a memo to get the conversation going. Even a bad memo, but sitting on it and going, “ah well there’s nothing better”, is not a good idea either.

            He may be ham fisted, but I’ll stand by anyone who wants to speak up when they see genuine issues. I may / may not like how they approach the issue, but I’ll allow them to make their ideas known without firing them.

          34. LW

            Clampers I think the mods did you a disservice by removing your exhortation to Nigel to “pleasure yourself with a toilet duck nozzle”. It neatly displayed the futility of trying to engage with you, and exactly how committed you are to getting a conversation going. Keep on trucking

          35. Clampers Outside!

            Nonsense, the regressive monkey have a load of as hominem before hand. I responded after he resorted to such repeatedly as far as I’m concerned.

            You are entitled to your view. thanks for the input.

          36. Nigel

            Clamps I took a cue from you earlier on and called it a ‘screed.’ Should we go back to thsat since you seem to think it’s more appropriate than ‘manifesto? ‘

            LW – if the mods deleted that it just shows they’re anti-science.

            Again. The guy was fired for circulating ten pages on company e-mail which explained why he thought women were not suited to working in tech, undermining and challenging the legitimacy and capabilities of his fellow employees. Any apologism for the guy that doesn’t adress that is not in good faith.

          37. Lord Snowflakee

            @ LW + Nigel

            I’m still waiting for one peer reviewed cite, even one!

            I guess I’ll be waiting a while

            In the meantime this guy really nails it:

            The manifesto tells us what we already knew: that a subsection of white men feel threatened and insecure. Everyone likes to feel they have achieved their lot in life on their own merit. It is a cause of profound insecurity for this to be challenged – to be forced to confront the idea you are partly where you are because life has been rigged in your favour (and what is more convenient than to appeal to biology to explain inequality? It’s fate rather than injustice, the comforting argument goes). And that’s why, incidentally, Google – like so many other companies – is disproportionately run by men from privileged backgrounds: because of odds stacked in their favour going back generations.

            the truth is they are so angry because they know, in the end, they are going to lose.

            https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/google-sexist-memo-alt-right-martyr-james-damore?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+main+NEW+H+categories&utm_term=238572&subid=11485653&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

          38. Listrade

            Clampers. You’re not going to draw me into your debate with Nigel. Mostly because I agree with Nigel.

            Anyway, on some of the points. To reiterate. The guy wants change and wants to end a system that he sees as futile. It might be, but he’s basing on a system that he thinks is natural because it suits him. No. No. No.

            Are women less competitive? Yes. But. Very important but. There. Is. No. Difference. In. Performance. Women are equal. EQUAL. In terms of ability.

            Study:

            http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-shy-away-competition-do-men-compete-too-much

            Other thing of note from the study:

            “Against their best interest, low-ability men entered the tournament too often, and high-ability women did not enter it enough. Women who performed in the highest performance quartile were less likely to select a tournament for the next task than men who perform in the lowest performance quartile.”

            The men who opt for the competitive route: LOW-ABILITY. The worst men opt for competition. (See any episode of the Apprentice). The system he deems as “natural” is a system that suits the less able male employees. Both the high performance men and high performance women chose not to compete. Probably because they’re comfortable in their ability and don’t have a micro-penis need to piss the highest up the wall (my assumption).

            See how that’s cherrypicking data, studies, conclusions? See how his idea of a natural workplace is wrong?

            No. 100% no, engineering does not suit men more than women. The current tech industry model of competition and isolation does. And again, at no point does he question whether that is wrong. At no point does he reference the deeper findings of research that disproves his argument.

          39. Clampers Outside!

            I agree with a lot of that.

            I never said i supported what the guy proposed as practice changes. I said I support his desire to have his say without being fired.

            Small penis jokes? Really Listrade, and you lecture me about how to be heard…. LOL
            Take your own advise fella.

          40. Clampers Outside!

            Listrade, that’s from the ‘Gender Action Portal’
            Not just cherry picking research but advocacy research. I’ve a big issue with ideologically informed advocacy research.

            As everyone who knows how advocacy research is conducted should.

            An aside.. today I’m on a phone, and it’s a pain in the hoop responding on a bumpy train. And it’s a pain to write long responses required so I can’t respond as I wish with detail. Laters

          41. Clampers Outside!

            Listrade,

            Below is from that portal:

            http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/performance-competitive-environments-gender-differences

            “In short, women perform significantly better when competing against other women as opposed to competing with men, while men perform better in competitive environments generally, and the gender of their competitors has no effect on their performance.”

            You assume it’s men’s fault when women perform less as well as men when they are present. Why do you assume the fault is men, couldn’t the fault be with women? 

            I don’t know, nor does the piece offer an answer.

            I’d note, that nowhere is intrasexual competition mentioned in any of the studies posted here. 

            Intrasexual competition in mixed sex environments is a factor that can effect both genders. 

            It could effect women’s under performance in mixed competitive settings. 

            It could give the men drive to prove their status and over perform compared to single sex competitive settings.

            I dunno myself, but it is an area worth investigation, non? 

            Anyway, the piece doesn’t give reasons, only that there are differences that occur naturally under test conditions. More research needed.

            So, women perform well in competitive environments, just not when the environment is mixed…. so that makes it men’s fault. That’s a ridiculous conclusion, and shows bias, non?
            I don’t pretend to know the answer but most arguing with my comments appear to. That’s their bias, non?

          42. I love everyone

            As a former engineering student myself in twp seperate fields mostly dominated by men I can tell you that most of the women who did study in our field were far superior to the average of the men: intellectually, socially, at doing presentations etc.

            Indeed one woman was the only one to graduate from the cohort with a first class honours.

            If you were doing a group project you’d always want to be on the team with the most women: agreed work would be done on time, to an excellent standard, and any flaws with the work would be openly discussed, even if divisive. You’d never feel able to do that to the same degree with some snowflake sissy men.

          43. Nigel

            Clampers supports the fundamental right of men to tell women they work with that they’re really not suited to their profession because of their gender. This is an important idea that men need to be allowed transmit through the company e-mail without consequences. There’s a terrible danger that if women in a workplace aren’t regularly reminded of scientific arguments proving their inferiority and unsuitability they might for get they’re inferior and unsuitable.

          44. I love everyone

            Thanks Clampers

            As others note however what you have offered to date is also anecdote. My anecdote is based on personal experience in the relevant fields. I found no evidence at all to support your or this authors screed, not even one example! You’d think there would have been one useless woman there in two classes of >50 people but that simply wasn’t the case. There were plenty of worthless men though – lazy, boring presenters, and in particular among the academics, several old staffers there who were clearly there due to gender bias and who they knew. As Listrade noted this is the result of the perpetual bias that exists, not of inherent superiority in either sex.

          45. Nigel

            Oops these threads are getting easy to muddle. This comment should be here:

            Then you shouldn’t have any issues with his employer dealing with his inappropriate behaviour as they deem fit.

          46. Listrade

            “You assume it’s men’s fault when women perform less as well as men when they are present. Why do you assume the fault is men, couldn’t the fault be with women? ”

            No I don’t. I didn’t say that. I said what the report said which is that the high ability women tend to not opt for a competitive environment, low ability men do.

            It was a response to the guy’s position that competition is natural and men are more suited to it. It seems only the low ability men are. High ability men and women don’t need competition.

            It is a major flaw in his argument. Women do shy away from competition, but their performance is equal. However, it is only those who engage in competition who get recognised in those systems. It isn’t a meritocrasy. It is a significant weakness in his memo/manifesto/screed/whole effin argument.

          47. Clampers Outside!

            As a percentage of the Google workforce, what number would you say are ‘high ability’?

            it would have to be up to 90/100% in order for your non-competitive work environment to work, would it not?
            Curious…

  1. Catherinecostelloe

    Sunday Times reporting of arrests if posting online during trial . Interesting I spotted John Wilson on TV this week after a trial walking with an accused person.!! The jury rules are you stay away from social media , twitter etc, and Dont discuss the trial outside the jury room. So what’s the big deal I wonder?!!

    1. Adama

      Didn’t the Irish Mail run a story on Ronnie Wood’s ex-wife yesterday? What is this? A twofer?!?!

  2. Kenny U-Vox Plank

    Sunday Times:

    Frank Fitzgibbon: What I Will be Doing for the Rest of My Life When My Retirement is Announced Next Week.

    Watch this space.

  3. Kenny U-Vox Plank

    Where are these front page images coming from?

    And more to the point, BS – are the paid advertisements?

    Let us know, Bodger, etc. Purely in the interests of transparency.

    1. Clampers Outside!

      They wouldn’t be ads. It’s a pain in the hoop to get all those, in fairness… it’s not something one presses a button on. I can recall having to do something similar in another job.

      Fair play to BS for putting it together… every feckin’ day wha’! :)

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        Indeed Clampers.
        I agree.

        It’s like a daily window on the outside World, as opposed to the insular, narcissistic tripe you find in the comments sections…
        …Of which I am more guilty of than most. I have to admit that…

        -But I TRY to be the worst. You don’t even try…
        It’s not fair.

        Did you ever hear the fable about the bloke who kept shouting ‘Clampers Outside! Clampers Outside!?
        After a while the villagers stopped listening to him, even when he said something that made some sense.
        – I’m always listening. I hear everything.

        Yeah, so your last girlfriend was a wagon. So was mine, until I got another one, and another one…etc.

        You’re cool, but you used to be much cooler.
        Peace and L♥VE

        1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

          PS.
          Guess which combination of illicit drugs I’m pretending I’m on?
          – Go on, have a guess…

          Neil, I’m only messin’. Don’t tell your mates, please.

          1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Just look at my voluptuous vocabulary…
            – You’re thinking about breatsicles now….
            I haven’t even got breatsicles.

            THIS is why the general public have no respect for any friend / apoligist of / for the Gardaí.
            It’s such a shame. They’re a great bunch of lads.*

            *Look at how I’m lowering the level of my wit so as you can keep up. It took a lot of grass, 2 Es, most of a bottle of cheap whiskey and an understanding of my target audience to sink this low. If you don’t do one of your fake grins it will all be for nought.

            Sorry Neil.
            You can take a joke, according to your CV.

          2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            [EDIT]
            After the line that went ‘I haven’t even got tits.‘ I meant to say ‘So how could I be off of me tits?

            It seemed a bit too ‘intellectual’* to put in a comment aimed at Gardaí.
            A great bunch of lads. :-)

            *Law-di-dahwww…

        2. Kenny U-Vox Plank

          In fairness, it’s like an online version of the newspaper section in SPAR.

          The questions remain.

          1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            The transparency you speak of…
            How opaque could or should it be?
            -What questions remain?

            Apart from that, I like to have a laugh at the papers in the nude.

            – You try doing that in your Local Spar. They won’t even let you on the bus ’round my way. It’s political correctness or something like that. Centra on Westmoreland are cool with it. Why can’t the rest of them follow suit?
            One law for the fully-clothed….

        1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

          Look around you Shayna…
          …we’re ALL here at 2:23 2:33.

          Hang on, it’s just me and you….

        2. Shayna

          In reply to an earlier comment, I’m no more Jewish, than a lapsed Catholic on it! -I like bagels with smoked salmon and cream cheese for breakfast. Yikes – I’m Jewish already?

          1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

            Oh Shayna…
            Just imagine, you could’ve had a proper double-sausage this morning, FOC.
            I’m tempted to say ‘you blew it’ but that sounds rather rude so I won’t.
            I wish you had’ve…
            …let me buy you breakfast.

      2. Shayna

        I suspect you’re doing “The Heat” quote by Al Pacino – ‘I’m out there every f**king day’. Nice one!

    1. Frilly Keane

      Well
      I can confirm Leo attended the Belfast Pride do
      You might not think that’s a big deal
      But
      Belfast Pride is a function of this years West Belfast festival
      … So he got to meet and hang out with some interesting people

      I’ll know tonight if he called by the Felons

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      It’s worse than that Ted…
      They’re letting him out of moderation faster than you’d normally get on a Wednesday afternoon.

      I reckon he might go for the record and still be posting comments this time tomorrow, which would be…eh… Frid Tuesday.
      Thursday.

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        Watch this sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq …
        He might try to change his name and / or his avatar, but remember, he’s only using one hand and he isn’t ambidextrous. He always messes it up, big-time.
        It’s like he has nothing to hide.

  4. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Oh, before I wander off for a bit…
    I’m being serious now for a minute…

    See that €25 Voucher that I won last week or the week before? By accident?
    – As I said before more than once I should NOT be allowed to enter that competition, let alone win it. I just can’t take it seriously.
    I love Golden Discs and I love the competition, but get a grip… I should NOT have won.

    Please give my prize to a charity of your choice or give it to the winner of the next competition.

    Seriously.

    1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      I was going to give the token to my teenage daughter.
      Then she asked me, ‘What is a discs?’
      – I didn’t answer, for fear of appearing very old or risking her asking the question again in public.

      I told her it didn’t matter and that if she ever wanted any music to just ask me and I’d get it off Pirate Bay.
      It’s not easy being a parent.

  5. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

    Have you ever woken up in a panic, thinking, ‘Oh no…I’m going to be late for work…?
    Then you realise you’re already in work and being at home was just a dream.

    It happens to me all the time.

  6. Shayna

    I’ve been watching all of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”, so I’m infected by Judaism according to Larry David. Now, I have a penchant for bagels – what can I tell ya?

    1. Shayna

      I’ve got the jingle to the show in my head – it used to be ‘Kashmir’ by Led Zep, which followed me for weeks, now it’s a jingle.

    2. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

      Yeah, but can you pee on a picture of The Son Of Christ without guidance?
      I didn’t think so.

      It’s moments like this that make me ask myself, ‘What would Jared Kushner do?’

  7. Shayna

    I did mention on “The Irish News” web-site, about Tyrone defeating Armagh (expectatedly), now we meet The Dubs (I’m from Tyrone). I’ve moderated on web-sites, but I have to say- Crazy at ‘The Irish News’. My comments were fluent and acceptable, but yet not published.

      1. Shayna

        @ Sheik If you don’t mind – what you do is a tad crass on it. I’ve been on ‘The Naughty Step’ for less.

  8. Shayna

    Sorry BS! — My life shouldn’t be open to strangers, however – I don’t think of the regular BS types as strangers.

      1. badatmemes

        I didn’t sneeze…
        I was just fidgeting with my spinner and suddenly…

        Its all over my hand, and I think there’s a bit on my leg. I’m afraid to look.
        What is this stuff?

          1. badatmemes

            No problem jusayin’, but please be aware that any money-off or discount vouchers are not valid on Bank Holiday weekends. ‘Two for the Price of One’ coupons are only redeemable after 4pm., and even then only if Jason turns up for work.
            And please, this time leave your dog at home. Im trying to run a business here.

            PS.
            You can bring the horse.

  9. Shayna

    Funny thing? @ 30 years ago, I’d be wakened on a couch in London on a Sunday morning. “It’s time to go”. It seems it was. Anyhoos, here I am in Belfast, Last night I had to do 999 call again about my upstairs neighbour. 5th time in a couple of weeks. I’m all for “Care IN The Community” – but this is a big guy (my neighbour) clearly off his meds, or something ,banging on my door @4am. (I live in an appartment block). Clearly, I’ve got to move – the cops talked to him – he thinks I’m talking about him (despite living alone), and he also thinks that I’m secretly recording him? Jesus may have wept?

      1. Shayna

        Cheers everyone – I’m keeping within the law, I’m fit to beat Bejesus out of the guy, but then I’ll be arrested. Anyhoos, it time for a move methinks?

        1. petey

          very sorry to hear this. of course you shouldn’t be the one who has to move.

          /fellow apartment dweller. i threatened to go to law once about an abusive neighbor. it worked. do you have any such recourse there? have you kept notes?

          1. Shayna

            Yes, it’s a series of 999 calls with crime reference from the PSNI – unfortunately, I’m a Catholic – which makes everything moot.

    1. Harry Molloy

      It’s about a lot more than Viet whesht. I had a few beers and was in awe (again).
      Filial duty, generational conflict, post colonial tension, lust for property, it’s all in there. And the Bull in the priests house is one fine bit of acting.

      Haven’t seen Tom in yonks, dunno what happened him.
      Sean Bean, sure we all know what’s going to happen to his character anyway

  10. kid jensen

    The journalists tweeting their support for Fitzgibbon is a bit much. he wasn’t sacked. as a member of the 4th estate myself I’m loath to get involved. But this is typical. ah sure isn’t he great.

  11. gerry

    supports for “loss making” landlords when rents are through the roof and higher than mortgage repayments?!

    1. gerry

      If, after tax, the rent does not cover the mortgage repayment the landlord is not making a loss. Any additional money they spend on the mortgage is not a loss it is an investment in an asset that they do not yet own and will own in time. Why should landlords expect to make a profit from a property they do not even own?

      1. sǝɯǝɯʇɐpɐq

        Exactly gerry.
        This place is overloaded with those who can’t understand how it turned out like this.
        The ‘educated by newspapers’ crew.

        I shouldn’t slag them, but still…

    1. mildred st. meadowlark

      I know. It’s all a bit mad. It seems to be a theme of bank holidays around here.

      Hope you had a nice holiday Jan :)

  12. Peter Dempsey

    The person who tweeted their offence to the Google memo was “literally shaking”. Shaking is a common reaction for outraged SJWs like Jane Ruffino.

    1. Lilly

      It’s fair to say you are obsessed with Jane Ruffino whoever she is.

      Anyone remember Don Pigeoni? Now there was a woman whose bottom was welded to the high horse. Herself and Kentucky Fried Kieran NYC must have eloped. Mercifully.

  13. Lilly

    @Listrade – You obviously haven’t come across any of the AdWords monkeys in Dublin so; not an Ivy leaguer in sight.

    1. I love everyone

      Even if Damore was not an American alt right loon he still would have been fired and rightly so. Reports today said he spent ages trying to get management to take his “grievance” seriously after being so “outraged” by Google training in the area. Then he was just so appalled apparently that he circulated it to others who posted it to all and sundry. He sounds like a real dumb guy, PhD my ass, in fact his ridiculous triggered behaviour underscores listrade’s commentary on their HR rather than counters it.

          1. Clampers Outside

            Go to 34mins 53secs and listen to the caller with twenty years as a corporate attorney paint the picture of the absolute hypocrisy Google have now created for themselves, by firing Damore.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        Also, please explain how u came to the conclusion he’s an ‘”alt right loon”

        Without evidence you are engaging in defamation of character.
        Plse show sources / evidence of your judgemental position, thanks

    2. Nigel

      Point me to a transcript or GTFO. I’ve read his stupid, stupid document and responded to your weird all-over-the-place passionate-yet non-committal defences (what are you defending? IQ tests? His arguments? His rights? SCIENCE? Whatever’s convenient for avoiding other people’s arguments?) I’m not listening to his whining voice or the whining voice of whoever put GULAG up in the style of Google.

      He got fired for circulating a document that effectively attacked and attempted to undermine his fellow employees. Like you, the guy comes across as such a Holy Fool he not only didn’t consider the effect of his document, he will never stop to consider the validity of his fellow employee’s reactions, in part because a small horde of people like you are working overtime to reinforce the attitude that because he’s a man, he’s got a monopoly on reason. God save us from evo psych.

      You’ve dodged, deflected, avoided, hand-waved and harrumphed away every point I’ve made and yet boasted that you’ve ‘taken them apart.’ I appreciate that the format here is the worst for long involved debates, and that you have at least made an effort to keep up, but look at all the times you’ve followed up a quote by me with an assertion about the nature of the quote instead of engaging with the content. You attempt to discredit, you do not engage.

      (I still can’t get over how you ducked out of a part of the discussion where we both were using conditional first and second person singular [if you were-if it was me-so would you-] by declaring my response ad hom. Good grief. I called you a turnip, THAT was ad hom. Presumably your deleted remark about the toilet duck was in the spirit of the scientific method. I mean I CAN get over it, I’m perfectly used to your turnip-based argument style, but still…)

      Let me reiterate once again the fundamental fact of his firing which you have assiduously avoided: he was fired for circulating on company email to his fellow employees a document which suggested that his female employees were not suited to be in the tech industry. No company could or should allow that. Why should female employees be obliged to put up with that kind of nonsense?

      Tell you what, if you want stronger employee protections, you need unions. If this guy had a union, they might have worked something out. Too bad.

      We’ve all posted tn-page screeds now, let’s go get fired. And furied.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        Point me to a transcript or get the fupp out

        Cute evasive move that ;)

        Shall I…
        a. lower myself to your standard and refuse to read what you have blurted out
        or b. read it and respond knowing what the other is talking about.

        I’ll go for b.

        Giz a few minutes to decipher it :)

        1. Clampers Outside!

          Dang… did I hit send it is it in moderation … I’ll wait and see. Sorry, I’m on the phone again, and a bus this time, not sure if I hit send…

          Might be morning before I know, and will respond then if it doesn’t show up, ta

      2. Clampers Outside!

        “He got fired for… ” – See npr post by Luke Warm. I’ll not pretend to know when the professionals don’t know. You, the Righteous Court of Nigel, slammed the hammer and determined his guilt last SUnday when you hoovered up all the biased media that supports your viewpoint, because feels.

        I’ve answered your waffle and meandering questions, but i’ll not respond to accusations. Accusation is not debate ya foolish pet. Accusation, is just that Nigel, accusation.
        Just because you accuse someone of something doesn’t make it so. You’ve already demonstrated your ideological bent that causes you to jump to judgement without facts, so I’m not going to respond to any accusations without basis, thanks.

        This is what I mean about waffle. This is the kinda nonsense you expect a response from: “Presumably your deleted remark about the toilet duck was in the spirit of the scientific method.”

        The Toilet Duck nozzle quip was a response to name calling and continued accusation. Because as I said, accusation does not deserve a (proper) response.

        Let me reiterate…. you had him hung before the facts. And you are still in denial of the facts when you intentionally misinterpret the memo.

        – – – – –

        You remind me of this… it’s only a couple of mins…

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA

        1. LW

          Point of order, your ‘quip’ was not a response to name calling. Anymore than you telling him to “GFY pet, and go get a room for yourself and do a rude thing”. What name-calling did Nigel engage in?

        2. Tabloid Rag

          @ Clamper and Nigel

          That debate posted by Luke Warm is what a real debate sounds like.
          Note the lack of shrill, personalised invective and name-calling. Thanks.

        3. Nigel

          Clamps I read the piece when you posted it and reached my own conclusions about the content before I read antrying else about it. He got fired and it seems obvious to me why. The two things are separate but related. If he has some sort of legal recourse for unfair dismissal good for him go for it. I just hope he doesn’t rely on the internet for legal advice because I’m not sure online accusation of hypocrisy have much legal weight.

          Your weird rant about accusations is more postmodern than anything I can come up with. It’s a rather obvious and childish way of attempting to discredit arguments without engaging with their substance. If my ‘accusations’ are so wrong and without basis refuting them should be trivial and surely cost no more time or effort than the composition of your ‘accusations’ rant. Surely the fundamental attraction of a debate is taking on the arguments or ‘accusations’ of your opponent and refuting them or disproving them, not taking cover behind an intellectual cop-out.

          1. Clampers Outside!

            Let me get that…

            “Surely the fundamental attraction of a debate is taking on the arguments… of your opponent and refuting them or disproving them without accusation”

            22. Argument from intimidation: [from a reader] The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.” This is reminiscent of the McCarthy era loyalty oaths or groups that demand that candidates take a yes or no position on complex issues. Or the “climate change denier” accusation. This is also the stock in trade of the 21st century black race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

            https://www.johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news-blog/60887299-intellectually-honest-and-intellectually-dishonest-debate-tactics

          2. Nigel

            Not until the next day. I called it a screed at first! So did you! I actually thought manifesto was politer! Why would you even think that’s noteworthy or significant? Modernism is the search for truth: what the document said, why he was fired. Postmodernism is the search for meaning: WHY did Nigel call it a manifesto? That’s the real question!

          3. Nigel

            You posted that quote without irony, you who, also without irony, have labeled me ‘regressive,’ ‘anti-science’ and ‘postmodern.’ Not sure if the toilet duck thing belongs there. The quote strikes me as a cop-out for people who are incapable of moving on from or effectively defending ideas that have been discredited or rejected but who want to persist with them when everybody else thinks they’re a waste of tme and energy. Like the idea that women are inherently unsuited to work in certain industries.

    1. Eddard Snowflakee King of the Snort

      Triggered again? It doesn’t take much. I’m gonna put you out of the misogny business if its the last thing I do.

Comments are closed.