Elsewhere (250)
Heather Mac Donald on “diversity” voodoo’s encroachment on science and technology:
Columbia’s vice provost for faculty diversity and inclusion regurgitates another classic of diversity boilerplate to justify this enormous waste of funds. “The reality is that you can’t really achieve excellence without diversity. It requires diverse thought to solve complex problems,” says vice provost Dennis Mitchell. Mitchell’s statement is ludicrous on multiple fronts. Aside from the fact that the one thing never sought in the academic diversity hustle is “diverse thought,” do Mitchell and his compatriots in the diversity industry believe that females and underrepresented minorities solve analytical problems differently from males, whites, and Asians?
Somewhat related, this. It’s remarkable just how readily all of this “diversity” and wokeness boils down to a mental image of a teacher turning to one of his students and saying, “You, the brown boy. What’s the negro perspective on this engineering problem?”
See also this, added via the comments.
Arthur Sakamoto on what happens when you challenge the racial assumptions entrenched in sociology departments:
People are afraid to critique this paradigm [of “white privilege” and systemic racism] because it’s so ideologically popular. Privately, some people have told me that [by challenging it,] I’m, quote, “suicidal.” […] I’ll be frank with you — I’ve been submitting to the American Sociological Review on Asian Americans for the past 25 years and apparently there’s no data good enough to convince the reviewers that Asian Americans have reached parity with respect to white people. Every single one gets rejected. What happens is, when the paper doesn’t conform to the conventional wisdom [of “white privilege”], the methodological standards are raised. But if you argue that there is discrimination, then the methodological standards are relaxed.
Mark McGreal and Richard Sander on what happens when you question the effectiveness of “affirmative action”:
“Michael Schill (the former dean of the UCLA Law School) told me privately that he thought it was a breakthrough study,” Sander said. But after it was published, Sander said that Schill sent an email to the student body suggesting “there are those of us who seriously question the credibility of this research.” Sander cited additional examples in which editors of peer-reviewed journals, including one at the University of Pennsylvania, told him privately they would publish his study, then later had to back out due to their financial backers’ dislike of the content of the study’s findings.
And Ed Driscoll quotes Mark Lilla’s book The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics:
As a teacher, I am increasingly struck by a difference between my conservative and progressive students. Contrary to the stereotype, the conservatives are far more likely to connect their engagements to a set of political ideas and principles. Young people on the left are much more inclined to say that they are engaged in politics as an X, concerned about other Xs and those issues touching on X-ness. And they are less and less comfortable with debate. Over the past decade a new, and very revealing, locution has drifted from our universities into the media mainstream: Speaking as an X…This is not an anodyne phrase. It sets up a wall against any questions that come from a non-X perspective. Classroom conversations that once might have begun, I think A, and here is my argument, now take the form, Speaking as an X, I am offended that you claim B. What replaces argument, then, are taboos against unfamiliar ideas and contrary opinions.
What we’re seeing is an attempt to obscure an underlying vanity and pompousness – essentially, “How dare you question my unimpressive ideas?” Which, stated plainly, would invite derision. Instead, however, the phrasing is, “How dare you question my cartoonish identity, my pretence of victimhood, my vast, unknowable brownness?” A framing that is so emotionally theatrical and personalised, and often so baffling, as to discourage further challenge, even though the dynamic, and the intent, is basically the same.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
It’s remarkable just how readily all of this “diversity” and wokeness boils down to a mental image of a teacher turning to one of his students and saying, “You, the brown boy. What’s the negro perspective on this engineering problem?”
That. Remind me again who the racists are…
That. Remind me again who the racists are…
And that’s the thing. If you tease out the implications of “diversity” ideology, it all sounds rather archaic and absurd, and just a tad racist. And taken to its ideological conclusion, you end up in some very strange places.
Also from the Heather Mac Donald piece, this:
Note how the university’s “diversity” bureaucrats casually insult large swathes of their “community.”
And from the same, this:
Again, note the diversi-crat’s casual patronising of female engineers, or astronomers, or whatever. As if the girly engineers can’t cut it without expensive bureaucratic hand-holding. Because all those smelly boys will just put them off.
The real problem with sexism and racism is that they are justified, a fact which even this courageous blog and its commenters sidle around.
Blacks and women, statistically, are not as good as white males at mathematically based disciplines like engineering, Jews and Orientals are better. All the bureaucratic help in the universe won’t change genes so as to raise IQ and create a work ethic.
Years ago in the course of an honours math degree I proved to myself that I had at best a second class mathematical mind. I also found that the 5 students from the faculty of education sent over to sit in on my 1st year algebra class had third or forth class brains. One man, four women, none of them able to comprehend more than the simplest algebraic concepts.
We all claim to believe in biology and evolution and then ignore them, or even heap scorn on them, or their necessary implications. If perhaps 30% of white males have the ability to do serious engineering, Orientals and Jews have 35 or 40% and Black men have 15 or 20%, with women at perhaps 40% of those percentages, what are the implications? They are so obvious and painful we can’t even bear to look at them. Yet.
Because all those smelly boys will just put them off.
I’ve mentioned on these pages before, my son is a maths and engineering student at a STEM university with a 65/35 male to female ratio among the student body. His favorite professor is a women in her sixties, who is deeply beloved by the mostly male students who flock to her classes. She also happens to be the most demanding professor in the department. Evidently, the students are not “woke” enough to get beyond merely respecting and rewarding competence in order to see her as demographic box which must be checked.
It’s remarkable just how readily all of this “diversity” and wokeness boils down to a mental image of a teacher turning to one of his students and saying, “You, the brown boy. What’s the negro perspective on this engineering problem?”
I think you already answered that.
I will now go denounce myself as a rayciss white devil (BIRM).
I don’t think I saw a single female lecturer in the engineering school during my four years at Manchester. There was a lady teaching a business module, and I only remember this because I suspected my mate was shagging her.
I suspect the desired solution for “white privilege” is forced confiscation of white property and assets and redistribution. You know, for “justice.”
In fact, I’m sure that sends a thrill up the leg of every campus sociologist. It’s probably pillow talk among themselves.
But how’s that working out in Zimbabwe?
The secret of success is singleness of purpose, not diversity. Which means that a group, to be successful, has to be uniform in cultural values, like the US, or the British Empire (formerly). Saying that diversity brings strength is like mixing clay with steel. Yes, it is diverse, but your bridge won’t remain standing.
I don’t see the two as necessarily being in opposition, Douglas. I’ve been part of teams where having a diversity of perspectives came in really handy, as somebody would come up with a solution to a problem that would never have occurred to me. The trick is that our diverse players were all focused on the mission at hand (singleness of purpose, in your words), as opposed to each player being focused on “winning” the diversity jackpot as part of a zero-sum game.
If the various Angry Studies graduates brought practical creative problem-solving skills to the table, we’d happily review their resumes and bring them in for interviews. Unfortunately for all concerned, they’re not at all interested in solving problems, but rather in creating stupid new problems for which Danegeld is always their suggested solution.
Of course, if you ask them, their resumes aren’t binned because they’re all toxic mediocrities; it’s because the rest of us are blinkered bourgeois bigots. Thus, we must be forced to hire them into our organizations. It’s for our own good, really. A dose of medicine to cure our outdated modes of thinking, focused as they are upon such petty interests as “creating valuable products” and “turning a profit.”
“That is the reality”
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/919383714492116993
“Because all those smelly boys will just put them off.”
A young woman I know peripherally decided to transition to male (I don’t know what the current status is, though). Apparently s/he had gotten to the point where s/he was disgusted by the antics/visuals seen in the male locker/dressing room.
A young woman I know peripherally decided to transition to male… Apparently s/he had gotten to the point where s/he was disgusted by the antics/visuals seen in the male locker/dressing room.
I’m not sure I understand that combination of sentences.
We are doomed.
“The reality is that you can’t really achieve excellence without diversity.”
I’ll just leave this here.
I.e., once s/he was able to access male-only areas due to her trans status s/he was appalled at the icky behavior of the smelly boys.
I.e., once s/he was able to access male-only areas…
Oh, I see. Derp.
I’m not going to ask about the, um, antics.
I suspect there might have been copious proud farting and other crudities.
proud farting and other crudities.
And people laughed when I said the bowls of trail mix also double as potpourri.
Unfortunately for all concerned, they’re not at all interested in solving problems, but rather in creating stupid new problems for which Danegeld is always their suggested solution.
So it’s not about the nail?
I’ve been part of teams where having a diversity of perspectives came in really handy, as somebody would come up with a solution to a problem that would never have occurred to me. The trick is that our diverse players were all focused on the mission at hand (singleness of purpose, in your words), as opposed to each player being focused on “winning” the diversity jackpot as part of a zero-sum game.
Bingo.
The point of genuine and viable diversity is always to have on hand the possible variety of doing whatever is being worked on, to always get the best ideas in play while never forgetting that the only constant is change.
The mere identity of the source of an idea remains irrelevant as long as the idea works . . .
—And yes, what equally pisses off the right wing is that the mere ideology of some idea will also remain utterly irrelevant.
—Whether the mere right wing liberal and the fantasy of faith and ideology, or the mere left wing liberal and fantasy of the idealized identity, either and both will continue to get eclipsed by the conservative focus on just getting whatever done.
I’ll just leave this here.
Quite So—
What do you like doing in your spare time?
I read French literature and calculate satellite azimuth angles. . . . . .
Heh.
I’ll just leave this here.
One notices the abundance of neckties in the room. To borrow a bit from Sam Johnson: “Nothing sharpens the mind like a noose around one’s neck.”
A demonstration of the success of actual diversity, rather than the left wing variety . . .
To Fred Z: Unfortunately, even you do not state the truth.
You postulate perhaps 30% of white males have the ability to do serious engineering, Orientals and Jews have 35 or 40% and Black men have 15 or 20%, with women at perhaps 40% of those percentages.
The truth is actually much more lopsided than that. If it were true, then those percentages would be evident in the STEM classes. As a matter of fact, your average STEM class has perhaps a quarter or a fifth white, with the rest Asians. You would rarely find a black. That is the fact, whatever the reason. Part of it has to be the abysmal conditions of the schools in predominantly black areas, but that is probably not the major reason. But yes, I believe a big part of it is genetic, just as genetics is why three quarters of the NFL is black, and nine tenths of the NBA.
I have known just a few black engineers in my career. Most of them are very competent. One I especially relied on. But they were few and far between. However, the only one who made it to a management position had no such ability, but managed to BS himself to his position in the affirmative action climate. The others really prefer engineering, and were no different than all the other math nerds and lab rats.
We were nerds long before programmers existed.
And they are less and less comfortable with debate.
This is something I have increasingly found. The Daily Californian, the student newspaper for the University of California at Berkeley, regularly runs editorials saying that there’s no such thing as free speech, and speech is violence if used against the oppressed, and so on on.
So I’ll rebut, politely and coherently. I’m trying to convince, not bully.
I rarely get a response, and if I do get a one it’s invariably vacuous and abusive, a transparent attempt to sideline the discussion.
So what’s happening? Is no one in one of the most prestigious universities in the world capable of responding to disagreement in a constructive manner?
My guess is this — they can’t defend a position because they don’t know how. They haven’t been trained to argue, only to posture.
When I do teach classes, the female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman in front of their classroom
If I were a woman and were stepping into an area with few of them, I might appreciate having a few authoritative women around, just as if I were from Luxembourg and watching the Olympics I might appreciate having a few medal winners from Luxembourg there. But that’s as far as it goes.
First shared some time ago, but not entirely unrelated:
I can’t say things have improved in the five years since that was posted.
My guess is this — they can’t defend a position because they don’t know how. They haven’t been trained to argue, only to posture.
Well, that’s the basic dynamic of identity politics, and no doubt its appeal. It short-circuits the customary obligation to be rational, or knowledgable, or to address an issue dispassionately, independently of oneself and one’s own immediate preferences. Almost anything can be dismissed as a personal affront, and any questioning of that display of offendedness, however dubious or dishonest the offendedness may be, is itself considered offensive, and therefore taboo. And so you can see the appeal, especially for people who struggle to construct convincing arguments.
The irony being that the people who bang on about their identity and race, and their all-excusing victimhood, at every opportunity, are much more likely to be bigoted and insufferable than those who don’t. And so you can find self-styled “anti-racists” who deploy racial epithets with hair-trigger enthusiasm. As when Ian Miles Cheong parsed some “social justice” hokum and was immediately referred to as a “house chink,” or Dr Ben Carson being gleefully disdained as an “Uncle Tom” and a “house negro.” Or as the leftist Daily Kos put it, a “political Mandingo.” “He can shine my shoes,” quipped the ‘progressive’ comedian Laura Levites.
Apropos of this:
they can’t defend a position because they don’t know how. They haven’t been trained to argue, only to posture.
I yesterday came across this article and heaved deep sighs of disappointment with the state of things:
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/04/traditional-college-debate-white-privilege/360746/
I yesterday came across this article and heaved deep sighs of disappointment with the state of things
We touched on that here. Apparently, these budding intellectuals are “hacking traditional college debate’s white privilege problem” by mouthing gibberish, hyperventilating, and repeatedly invoking their “nigga authenticity.” And of course begging questions at a rate of knots. For those who missed the edifying spectacle, here’s a brief transcript of the “debate”:
I must confess, I’m not sure how to respond to that. Which I suppose is the idea.
I yesterday came across this article and heaved deep sighs of disappointment with the state of things:
Actually, the above “debate” is quite symbolic of the broader Angry Studies hustle. Credulous and ungifted students are being told, by ungifted educators, that the way to win a debate and to establish one’s intellectual heft, is to retreat into a degrading racial caricature, a cartoonish pantomime of blackness, complete with actual jabbering, while ignoring the ostensible topic, disregarding the rules for reciprocation, and shouting profanities at the moderators. As if this behaviour, for which they’re applauded by their peers, will serve them well in the adult world. Say, when looking for a job.
And so we have pseudo-students who are laughably unsuited to an academic environment receiving a pseudo-education that’s intellectually vacuous and actually hinders their chances in life, thanks to incompetent and dogmatic pseudo-educators, all bankrolled with loans that may never be repaid. If it weren’t actually happening, for real, at great expense, it would be darkly hilarious.
Which I suppose is the idea.
Orwell. Control the language. They’re taking it a step further by essentially owning it. Words mean whatever they want them to mean and if you fail to understand them, better for them and aren’t you the stupid one. At which point the only means of effective communication that are left are the physical ones.
Our legal system is effectively playing the same game, only a bit more subtly.
I must confess, I’m not sure how to respond to that.
“Which would you like first, to see the neurologist, or the speech therapist ?”
. . . that the way to win a debate and to establish one’s intellectual heft, is to retreat into a degrading racial caricature, a cartoonish pantomime . . . while ignoring the ostensible topic, disregarding the rules for reciprocation, and shouting profanities at the moderators. As if this behaviour, for which they’re applauded by their peers, will serve them well in the adult world. Say, when looking for a job.
No jerks.
—Following up on when that was written, Laurie Voss is now the COO of NPM Inc.
I yesterday came across this article and heaved deep sighs of disappointment with the state of things
I found the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8&feature=youtu.be&t=40
I’m genuinely shocked.
I’m genuinely shocked.
It’s intellectual vandalism dressed up as some kind of Ultimate Woke Championship. And naturally, the left-leaning Atlantic swoons with approval.
But for the minority students who participate in this farce – and who simply ignore the issue they’re supposed to debate, and ignore time limits, and ignore any semblance of logic or evidence or formal argument, and spout what is for minutes on end literal gibberish, a kind of Dadaist jive – for these students, what’s the message they’re being given here?
Because it seems to me that the lesson they’re expected to take away is that all rules can be broken with impunity, and all standards and proprieties dispensed with as and when convenient, provided you’re sufficiently black and pretend to be oppressed, while actually being cossetted and flattered at every turn. This is not, I suspect, a recipe for success in the world, or for any lasting personal happiness.
Somewhat related:
Anthropologists tell us that science isn’t real:
https://twitter.com/Alec_Ksiazek/status/918511763326406657
This “social construct” BS is getting real old. Social constructs are a social construct. Yes, that’s so obvious it’s almost stupid to say. Almost, and yet seemingly necessary.
I found the video.
Wow.
Wow.
Yes, it’s quite a thing to behold.
Perhaps it’s just me, but the indulgence of this half-witted claptrap seems a tad condescending. Sort of, “If you can’t actually structure a rational argument, never mind. Just keep shouting ‘racist!’ and flap your arms about.”
Dadaist Jive
Album title sorted.
I do hope someone’s been compiling all our band name and album title ideas.
I think Unexpected Scrotum was my favorite (band name).
Meat Tissue.
Meat Tissue.
Yes, that one lingers in the mind.
Also, The Gratuitous Plurals and Noisy Cock Anger.
We should do this professionally. Imagine the riches.
I found the video.
Wow. Just wow. I don’t know what to say.
Perhaps apocryphal, someone asked a Python, “What is the least likely name for a band”? “Toad, the Wet Sprocket”. And so it was.
Audrey Pool O’Neal told the Daily Bruin that she never saw anyone who looked like her (black and female) when she was an undergraduate and graduate student. “When I do teach classes, the female students let me know how much they appreciate seeing a woman in front of their classroom,” O’Neal said.
Now any student be they male or female going up to their teacher after a class and stroking the teachers vanities in such away would a) Hurt their future success. b) Help their future success. or c) Make no difference.
My moneys on b).
We should do this professionally. Imagine the riches.
Clearly there needs to be a Homer And Jethro cover band, and the Official Band Name can change from week to week . . .
Commentary: Enlightened Chinese democracy puts the West in the shade.
Oh, my.
Try not to giggle too loudly.
Related:
Linda Bellos –remember her?– gets a rude awakening when it turns out that it is indeed quite possible to be hoist by one’s own petard:
University should be a safe space – should be safe, kind of, physically. But if it’s going to be safe in relation to ideas! This is like, this is like some kind of, some kind of fascist world
She splutters indignantly as the world she helped create turns out not to be quite as she imagined it would (assuming she had even thought that far ahead, which is doubtful).
Yet the warnings, often quite nicely summed up by this well-known quote from A Man for All Seasons (despite Bolt’s evident intention to criticise More throughout the play including in this speech), went, still go, unheeded.
[W]here would you hide … ? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast … and if you cut them down … d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake
She splutters indignantly as the world she helped create turns out not to be quite as she imagined it
What’s creepy and pathological is that the students don’t seem capable of entertaining the idea that what they want is creepy and pathological.
“… it is indeed quite possible to be hoist by one’s own petard:..”
Great video filled with unintended hilarity as the left conjure the ouroboros into being. Again.
Always respect the media.
Science!
Science!
Or possibly an elaborate boast.
Science!
Right. From the same august publication, “Turn your head and cough”, or what we in the trade used to say before it evidently became NSFW.
“Linda Bellos -remember her?- gets a rude awakening…”
David, every dive into the archives is an amazing journey. This one led quickly to a deranged “militant cyclist” in your comments thread.
@Farnsworth
I understand there is a scientific instrument which is capable of visualizing individual atoms. Still, it is not sensitive enough to detect my interest in the topic of the link you just posted.
Still, it is not sensitive enough to detect my interest in the topic of the link you just posted.
It was not intended to peak interest so much as amazement and/or bewilderment.
Jaded and cynical as I am, I was still gobsmacked that someone could turn a less than enjoyable part (for either party) of a routine physical exam into something sexual.
“Is that a hernia in your pants, or are you just glad to see me ?”
David, every dive into the archives is an amazing journey. This one led quickly to a deranged “militant cyclist” in your comments thread.
If it’s any comfort, I sometimes find myself wandering through old threads in amused bewilderment.
“…don’t seem capable of entertaining the idea…”
Well, it’s all harmless role-play, isn’t it?
The adults can step in and fix things at the last minute if things go horribly wrong!
Plus, it’s just a matter of time before the Reality Undo button is invented – I mean, software already has those buttons!
@Farnsworth
Amazement and/or bewilderment, indeed. The fact that someone would publish such a thing astounds me, though in this day and age, I wonder why. I did not intend to imply criticism of your contribution to this thread. Indeed, I’m in relatively good mood. My son scored two goals in a high school soccer (“Footie” for you European types) playoff game last night including the game-winner. The descent of culture ever further cannot cause me dismay at the moment.
This seems apposite:
Charles Geshekter on “diversity” ideology – and its fantasies and taboos.
a student’s ancestry or skin colour bestows no special insights or knowledge. There is no “black perspective” on chemistry or “Hispanic perspective” on statistics.
It’s amazing this even has to be said in the 21st century.
It’s amazing this even has to be said in the 21st century.
#Progress
Authentic ghetto gibberish sets them all a’twitter… they simply must have some for their cultural menagerie…
they simply must have some for their cultural menagerie…
The left’s racial pieties often seem uncannily like a fetish.
That debate video is genuinely hilarious. Monty Python couldn’t have done it any funnier.
The white female interviewing them is a dissembler extraordinaire. How on earth did she keep a straight face interviewing them?
How on earth did she keep a straight face interviewing them?
Perhaps she sensed the penalties for not pretending.
I knew that debate reminded me of something.
I think we’re seeing cultural appropriation in college, yet again!
“If it’s any comfort, I sometimes find myself wandering through old threads in amused bewilderment.”
I was forced to resort to astonishment.
From day one at npm Inc we implemented our No Assholes policy
From the same author:
The real danger of Google firing the sexist memo-writer is making him a martyr for people who see “liberal group-think” and “censorship”….Let’s be clear: creating a hostile work environment is not “diversity of thought” or “speaking truth to power”. It’s being an asshole.
Back to you, Hal.
Re the Melissa Fabello thing David linked to–
1). She now has 2 cats. Any more and she’ll scare off prospective husbands, more than she is already. Some guys will only consider 1 cat per woman. I think 2 should be acceptable, as most people know that 1 kitten will get into everything but 2 will keep each other busy. More than 2, I’d advise my son to steer clear, if for no other reason than that the number of cats always seems inversely proportional to the owner’s interest in keeping the litter box clean. (Barn cats who never come in should not be counted against a woman.)
2). Someone wrote in to David’s original article mentioning that he and his wife could not speak each other’s languages when they met. One of my aunts arrived in the U.S. speaking Thai and another language (French, I think) but very little English; had a terrible time for the first couple of years.
I must confess, I’m not sure how to respond to that.
“I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul“?
Let’s be clear: creating a hostile work environment is not “diversity of thought” or “speaking truth to power”. It’s being an asshole.
It’s strange how providing a polite, well-argued, extensively annotated, factually accurate memo – as solicited by the “diversity” department of one’s employer – now constitutes “creating a hostile work environment.” Unlike being fired for writing said polite and factually accurate memo, being doxxed and proudly blacklisted by colleagues and peers, and subsequently being smeared and libelled by supposedly professional journalists who didn’t comprehend, or even bother to read, the memo they were so keen to be seen denouncing.
Why, it’s almost as if these people just can’t help projecting.
From the same author: . . .
Oh, quite so.
Let’s be clear: creating a hostile work environment is not “diversity of thought” or “speaking truth to power”. It’s being an asshole.
Exactly . . .
. . . Back to you, Hal.
Yes, I’m over here, and yer point is . . . ?
Speaking of identity politics and the academic clown quarter…
You will be surprised to learn that Miss Phipps “teaches” gender studies at Sussex University. Original tweet is here, but I am not sufficiently Woke™ to know what the hieroglyphics mean, so if anyone can translate “100// Fist Cone Heart”, please let me know.
It is not stated whether the students got nap time after their efforts.
and yer point is . . . ?
…sufficiently clear to everyone else, I think, and nicely elucidated by our host.
It is not stated whether the students got nap time after their efforts.
One hopes the good professor had a paramedic standing by for those students who tried to swallow the brightly colored “candy” blocks.
Now Hal, look at David’s comment right above yours, that was posted more than a hour earlier, then look at yours. bgates’ point should become abundantly clear.
You will be surprised to learn that Miss Phipps “teaches” gender studies at Sussex University.
Not sure which would disturb me more. That she isn’t a kindergarten teacher or that she is.
Now Hal, look at David’s comment right above yours, that was posted more than a hour earlier, then look at yours. bgates’ point should become abundantly clear.
. . . . ???
‘k, let’s go back through the piece(s), again, shall we?
So we’re discussing commentary by Laurie Voss.
For those who may have missed it up the thread a bit, Laurie Voss is now the COO of NPM Inc., where at the time he commented on the No Assholes policy, he was the CTO of NPM.
The particular commentary regarding NPM and NPM practice states No Jerks. In fact, very pointedly, that statement equally pointedly states From day one at npm Inc . . .
Following that, bgates also points out that From day one at npm Inc we implemented our No Assholes policy . . .
bgates then notes Laurie’s comment about a totally and completely different company called Google which is not at all connected to NPM–aside from being the same general industry, but that can be like declaring that Ford pickup trucks are the same as Chevrolet pickup trucks. The comment by Laurie regarding that different company is that The real danger of Google firing the sexist memo-writer is making him a martyr for people who see “liberal group-think” and “censorship”….Let’s be clear: creating a hostile work environment is not “diversity of thought” or “speaking truth to power”. It’s being an asshole.
Quite so. Very much in short, Google. Screwed. Up.
Now, just in case someone has gotten the pieces mixed up, there is indeed a company called Google, and there is another company called NPM—upper case or lower—and these are completely separate and different companies. Laurie is the COO of NPM. Laurie has, as far as I know, a lack of any job at Google.
Following the reminder that Google. Screwed. Up., David then notes . . . It’s being an asshole.
It’s strange how providing a polite, well-argued, extensively annotated, factually accurate memo – as solicited by the “diversity” department of one’s employer
Again, for those who have lost their scorecard, David is writing of the screwup at Google. And regarding idiocy at Google, he sums up with Why, it’s almost as if these people just can’t help projecting.
The puzzlement begins with bgates stating Back to you, Hal. and it’s not clear if he’s cheering on Laurie and I and wants more of my commentary reinforcing that being an idiot is bad, or if he has some other idea in mind, where he’s really not stated the idea.
—And I didn’t really have any further commentary. David noted that left wing posturing can be a definite handicap, Say, when looking for a job. I, in turn, quite agreed, citing Laurie, noting that Laurie Voss is now the COO of NPM Inc.
Therefore, we’re now clear that NPM is not Google and vice versa, and as Laurie and David have pointed out, Google. Screwed. Up.
—Now, just in case, if there is an attempt to link the screwup at Google with commentary from the totally separate NPM and Laurie, David has also noted of anything like that, again, Why, it’s almost as if these people just can’t help projecting.
Sooo, with all of that helpfully mapped out and annotated for the greatest clarity, once again I ask.
What. is. your. point?
Hal, now you’ve sucked up my time… if you look at the twitter feed at bgates’ link (and oooh, thanks for making me do that) this Laurie person (is it a he, a she, a xe, a xit, I have no idea nor GAF so I suppose I’m a a-hole as well) in question clearly states (my emphasis):
Xit is on the side of Google. Xit is opposed to the guy who got fired. I believe that is the point.
Damn…in all that confusion/re-editing of pronouns, forgot to add…
I find xit’s use of the phrase, and again my emphasis “severely misguided man” to be itself a form of a-holeness.
Hal,
Hullo!
if you look at the twitter feed at bgates’ link (and oooh, thanks for making me do that) this Laurie person (is it a he, a she, a xe, a xit, I have no idea nor GAF so I suppose I’m a a-hole as well) in question
. . . I don’t get an impression of your being an asshole, but do go back to the twit feed and actually read the details, with the bolding below being mine.
. . . clearly states (my emphasis):
Google appropriately chose the comfort of the vast majority of its employees over that of one sincere but severely misguided man.
Of the Google memo, yeah, the writer, and the rest of us, found out he was sincerely misguided about the actual internal arrangements and overall focus inside Google.
In turn, of what Laurie writes, what one also sees there is:
In fact, what he rather pointedly adds is;
And for that blog link, what one finds is;
—Just that last alone describes what the Republicans are currently going through in the US, with the right wingers pissed off about having a Republican party president who is conservative instead of being merely right wing. In addition, the mere right wing is also still seeing the conservatives in the party linking up with the Democratic conservatives to actually get things done instead of chanting along with the Duh One Twue Faith of the right wingers . . .
Soo, back to Laurie, what I’m seeing is a discussion of organizational functions and operations. In the case of Google, the memo writer focused on operations, and Google focused on ideology, and the result was and is Google looking incompetent, as Google then went and fired the one with the focus on getting a job done, who also wrote a memo on the failure of ideology over reality . . .
And as Laurie is commenting,
Google screwed up, aka, instead of choosing “diversity of thought” or “speaking truth to power”; chose instead, Let’s be clear: creating a hostile work environment . . . It’s being an asshole.
. . . Now, certainly that’s what I am seeing, with my experience in running projects, and with my awareness of Laurie and his insistence of No Jerks . . . where in the case of Google, what I see of Google is that Google made the choice of being the large and collective jerk, asshole, whatnot . . .
. . . and certainly for clarity of what Laurie means, he does seem quite accessible, granting the timing logistics of being a fulltime COO of NPM, rather than somewhere at Google, perhaps you could invite him to comment?
it’s not clear if he’s cheering on Laurie and I
It’s not clear how one could cheer on Laurie and you, since as WTP points out you and Laurie appear to disagree. While NPM and Google are as you so ably pointed out not the same company, they share more similarities than both being in tech. A more salient point is that they both embrace slogans which at first glance seem inarguable but are in fact entirely dependent on words which each company feels free to redefine to suit its own, leftist ends. Thus Google won’t “be evil”, but it will comply with censorship demands from the Chinese government, and it will not allow James Damore to quote Badthink social science while on its payroll. Thus npm won’t hire “assholes”.
and certainly for clarity of what Laurie means, he does seem quite accessible, granting the timing logistics of being a fulltime COO of NPM, rather than somewhere at Google, perhaps you could invite him to comment?
He already has, Hal.
And in the linked tweet, Laurie Voss, who I’m sure everyone understands works for NPM and not Google, says of James Damore:
“You got fired for being an asshole. Stop making out like this is anybody’s fault but yours.”
Ah, bgates?
While NPM and Google are as you so ably pointed out not the same company . . . they both embrace slogans which at first glance seem inarguable but are in fact entirely dependent on words which each company feels free to redefine to suit its own, leftist ends.
Oh, dear.
An initial thought was that you might have only been frantically fishing for something that one could actually object to, but one would have to see, have to grant you the benefit of doubt . . . and Oh, My, you are merely fishing, and indeed aside from that, you have confirmed that your earlier and recent posts indeed have zero point.
Regarding that proof of floundering that you display up there, and regarding Google, what has been shown by Google is a preference for ideology over reality, which certainly could be either useless right wing ideology or useless left wing, given monofoci on left wing identity or right wing faith both being rather useless. In this case, with a focus on identity, Google has gone left instead of conservative or right wing.
By contrast, NPM has a long time stated focus on the totally conservative outcome of Getting The Job Done. As you state yourself, Thus npm won’t hire “assholes”. Thus the NPM reality over your ideology notes your total inability to truthfully claim that each company feels free to redefine to suit its own, leftist ends.
Google, yes. Laurie and NPM, no.
perhaps you could invite him to comment?
He already has, Hal.
Ah, perhaps you could invite him to comment further, instead of frantically combing through apparently Laurie’s entire tweet history in the hopes of finding something to actually let you walk on water, or whatever you’re flailing for.
A handy example of that flailing being, as you claim;
And in the linked tweet, Laurie Voss, who I’m sure everyone understands works for NPM and not Google, says of James Damore:
“You got fired for being an asshole. Stop making out like this is anybody’s fault but yours.”
A) No. The tweet you really linked is https://twitter.com/seldo/status/894745739456167936 and is the actual tweet which I commented upon.
B) Your additionally out of context quote is actually instead from the quite different tweet thread of https://twitter.com/seldo/status/898343246941650944 . . .
C) What one sees in that thread is a headline reading JAMES DAMORE INTERVIEW: Fired Google engineer compares being a conservative at Google to ‘being gay in the 1950s’ http://read.bi/2vHMIiZ
C1) Furthermore, that’s not even what one currently gets from the Business Insider website when going to the link address of http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-interview-video-2017-8 What I see at this moment is Fired Google engineer says his memo actually empowered women.
Getting back to C), in the article, one does find Damore stating that
In turn, What Laurie actually states in response to that headline, and mebbe the article, is;
. . which is only then finally followed by;
—Editorial note: I’ll grant that twit can have some quantity of some use or interest, but oy, doing transcriptions from twit to something else is a pain in the ass.—
So Laurie is not addressing the Google screwup with that tweet you selectively quoted from, he’s addressing an attempt to link Google’s screwup with the quite unrelated harassment of gays in the 1950s . . .
Of the Google memo, our host does note that . . .
. . . but that is a discussion of the memo, not a discussion of one comment by Damore—not Laurie—in a quite separate interview.
And finally, hopefully, I managed to find the tweet you creatively edited from by searching for your quoted sentence. Unless I’m missing something, you had to resort to rather aggressively hunting for something to attempt to make use of, because in doing that hunting, once you found that tweet, you had dug all the way back to August 17 . . . . I don’t know if you have any calendars nearby—have a look at a cell phone, for one—, but today is October 19, two months later. And a quick look at Laurie’s twit feed shows him to be more than a little prolific.
You. are. merely. fishing.
And you have caught naught but a very direct boot.
And aside from that, you have indeed established that in this, you have no point.
The problem with a “no assholes” work policy is that not everyone agrees on the definition of “asshole”. And the person who has the authority to fire you – it’s their definition that counts.
And jobs that entail the power to fire people tend to attract people who are assholes or via the stress involved turn a person into an asshole. C’est la vie.
I get the impression Laurie is more the genetic kind.