Elsewhere (243)
Further to this, Glenn Reynolds on the Google memo saga:
The Damore firing, and [CEO, Sundar] Pichai’s disgraceful handling of it, represents colossal damage to Google’s brand. In essence, it’s an announcement — by a company that has access to everyone’s data — that it endorses the notion of thought-crime.
Heather Mac Donald on divining phantom prejudice:
The attempt to find systemic police bias has come to this: the difference between an officer saying “uh” and saying “that, that’s.” According to Stanford University researchers, police officers in Oakland, California, use one of those verbal tics more often with white drivers and the other more often with black drivers. If you can guess which tic conveys “respect” and which “disrespect,” you may have a career ahead of you in the exploding field of bias psychology.
Howard Husock on the fallout of “affirmative action”:
Liberals should ponder the implications of what we’ve learned to date about Harvard admissions. Blacks can score 400 points lower than Asians on the SAT, and almost as much less than whites, and still get admitted. In an earlier time, blacks were told that they must be “twice as good” as whites to get into school or make partner at a law firm; they are now being told that they need only be half as good… Why work hard when less effort will be rewarded in the same way? Inevitably, this logic means that those African-Americans whose work really is twice as good are nonetheless suspected of being sub-par — a dispiriting fate. Who would ever want to be viewed as having been hired (or retained) for reasons other than one’s capabilities — say, fear of litigation?
Jackson Richman on the same:
Chunyan Li, a board member of the Asian American Coalition for Education, said: “Who is to say Obama’s daughters should have preference over a Chinatown cook’s son?”
Oh, and according to the founder of Vox and Daily Kos, you’re all Nazis now.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
Good question.
Seen on the tweets:
Why aren’t communists stigmatized just as much as Confederates and neo-Nazis are?
Because they’re such caring, compassionate beings? As demonstrated Here.
Because they’re such caring, compassionate beings?
I sometimes catch myself using words like degenerate and wonder if it makes me sound older and more curmudgeonly than I actually am.
And then I remember why it’s both fitting and necessary.
I sometimes catch myself using words like degenerate and wonder if it makes me sound older and more curmudgeonly than I actually am.
TBH, in about 5 years, I see you leading a road war against ugliness and degeneracy:
Prove me wrong!
Heh. In fairness, I can’t rule it out.
This is what democracy looks like.
Yep. Liberals voted out of power and now having a hissy-fit on the sidelines, where they belong.
Looks good to me!
Let’s have a demonstration to publicly demonstrate things but if someone turns up to broadcast it we will basically threaten to hurt him. Yep that’s logical.
“The Swiss Alps Seem Quaint Until You Learn the Truth About Their Residents
It turns out that the more pastoral a place looks, the more it’s swarming with racists and nationalists”
But if you read the article it’s about a small village that minds its own business and doesn’t want anything to do with the EU or Bern. There isn’t any particular animosity to any group apart from that.
Maybe this should be on the Thread That Will Not Die, but I’m seeing something that reminds me of the Damore reactions. Commenters have noted the oddity that people, legacy media etc, told blatant lies about what his memo said at the same time people could read the memo (and see that it had citations) and see that they were simply not true.
Something similar is happening with Trump’s further remarks on Charlottesville. I heard a BBC new radio guy saying a headline to the effect that ‘Trump appears to walk back previous remarks/condemnation.’ But you can listen to his actual remarks, where he *explicity* condemns White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis.
Of course, the underlying terror for the MSM narrative here is *gasp* nuance. That most of the marchers were not Nazis, and that they had followed the rules and had a permit (until it was withdrawn at the last minute), whereas their protesters did not, and that both sides were violent. How dare he call out the alt-left and point out their violence! They are the good guys (see also, Mitt Romney’s tweet, and tedious virtue signalling from Conservatives here).
Tim Newman on polyamory.
There isn’t any particular animosity to any group apart from that.
But the Swiss don’t seem to want hundreds of thousands of immigrants and refugees coming to Switzerland; which naturally means they’re Nazis.
On the risks of a universal basic income:
This is my shocked face.
I’m mildly shocked that you didn’t post your variation of “Let me google that for you” links to buttress your point(s).
Ehn, a subtle bit of Googlemancy could possibly turn up something, but given the level of obscurity, I suspect there’d have to be nearly an essay to tie all together that way.
In my case, I was at a dinner some while back, and someone at the table commented on his extreme amusement at the attempts of HollywoodIsh television to portray Beverly Hills as being, so to speak, effectively an all out white supremacist nirvana of some sort. Paraphrasing only slightly, from memory, his rather damaging critique was;
Once everyone stopped snickering, someone else chimed in with her example of equally clueless goyim, where I don’t remember if she had been on that trip she was telling of, or had just heard about it very close hand.
It seems there was an overnight outing of some sort of a bunch of Haredi teens from Beverly Hills. Also in the area and possibly taking part were rather a number of other teens, with the particular details rather indicating the others were rather a number of goys—something about mebbe a multi high school trip of some sort comes to mind as mebbe what was going on. Mebbe.
And thus in the afternoon of one day, many noticed the Haredi teenage girls climbing about, where apparently there were large rocks of interest, mebbe climbable trees, and quite a few of all of the teens were all taking part in this assorted climbing. In the case of the Haredi, being Haredi, they weren’t going to be wearing shorts, or some combination of skirts and bicycle shorts. Therefore, what they were wearing for this climbing was their combination of a relatively short skirt with the standard foot length blue jeans underneath.
And then the next day, there was rather a bit of notice as quite a number of all of the teenage girls were going about in relatively short skirts with foot length—or whatever they’d packed—blue jeans underneath.
And the cause for all of the after the fact snickering wasn’t that there had been some sort of mass conversion and all of the goyim decided that they were suddenly going to take up Judaism. Instead, what assorted found out, and the dinner guest reported, is that the other teens had learned where those girls were from, where thus clearly the skirt and blue jeans combination was what all the teenagers wore when from Beverly Hills . . . .
Sigh … Universal Basic Income; it’s been tried, it failed …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
Cheers
Tim Newman again, on polyamory and children.
Tim Newman again, on polyamory and children.
I’ll be wanting my own category soon.
I’ll be wanting my own category soon.
You wish. 🙂
Today’s word is irony.
Why, it’s almost as though the organizers anticipated the reaction to their event, and the administration’s reaction to the reaction, when they gave their event its title.
One hopes that the organizers will continue their toying with the perpetually aggrieved. Perhaps they’ll organize a “Micro-apologies” tour next.
“We” are defending that principle: On June 26 2017, The Supreme Court granted certiorari in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, ET AL. V. CO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N, ET AL. (No. 16-111).
Finally, a not-obviously-stupid response to Damore’s memo:
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-week-newspaper-said-alphabets-boss-should-write-detailed-ringing-rebuttal
I’ve only read it quickly once, and have not dug into any of the linked items, but it at least appears to be substantive.
‘Course, it appears to be missing a few words at the end, something like “Regardless of the fact that there actually appears to be substance to be discussed in this topic, you’re fired.”
but it at least appears to be substantive.
It still blatantly misrepresents the memo, by outright claiming that Damore said “ability” when he clearly said, over and over, “interest and choices”.
Actually, they outright admit they’re doing this:
“Then you make a giant leap from group differences between men and women on such measures as interest in people rather than things, or systematising versus empathising, to differences in men’s and women’s ability to code. At least that’s what you seem to be doing; you don’t quite say so.”
I’m not a witch, I’m not a witch! And this isn’t my nose, it’s a false one!
Further to the link upthread, Larry Elder talks with Heather Mac Donald.
“Not-obviously-stupid” seems about right.
It’s still stupid. Damore has a list of specific suggestions for how to close the gender gap and recruit more women in tech, and the Economist dismisses this as the equivalent of “I’m not racist but”. Then it progsplains his own point back to him about how recruiting more women in tech doesn’t have to be discriminatory against men.
RTFM, as they say.