Google’s Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts
-
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts[^] Pass me my pitchfork.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts[^] Pass me my pitchfork.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Yeah, look at what they are doing to YouTube now. If you don't toe the line with their political agenda, they either ban you or demonetize you.
-
Yeah, look at what they are doing to YouTube now. If you don't toe the line with their political agenda, they either ban you or demonetize you.
There may be kudos in working for a big tech firm like Google, but I'm pretty sure I'd be sacked within the week. It also seems fairly obvious that these activists have a great deal of influence over Google's products and services, including their search engine. This is why I use Duck Duck Go (I stopped using Google search over a year ago).
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts[^] Pass me my pitchfork.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
I almost read it as Google Outage :-)
-
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts[^] Pass me my pitchfork.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
When I see this sort of thing going on I tend to think that people who do science degrees or technical degrees should also have to read literature as part of their courses. Why read literature? Because well written literature will expose you to a lot of different views and ways of seeing the world. It would do some of these people some good to understand how small actions can escalate into more serious effects. I would recommend they see if not read The Crucible(the actual play not a film), by Arthur Miller, as a starter. There is a term "Dragon's head, snake's body" which describes this sort of phenomena where extremely technically brilliant people can also be very much emotionally childlike.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
When I see this sort of thing going on I tend to think that people who do science degrees or technical degrees should also have to read literature as part of their courses. Why read literature? Because well written literature will expose you to a lot of different views and ways of seeing the world. It would do some of these people some good to understand how small actions can escalate into more serious effects. I would recommend they see if not read The Crucible(the actual play not a film), by Arthur Miller, as a starter. There is a term "Dragon's head, snake's body" which describes this sort of phenomena where extremely technically brilliant people can also be very much emotionally childlike.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
The liberal bias within the tech industry, and Silicon Valley in particular, runs very deep. From the top all the way down. And it's not just their internal hiring strategies and politics, it's their products and services. It's no secret that Twitter, Facebook et al are inherently liberal. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogmatic liberal ideology will suffer the consequences (as we have already seen time and time again). I genuinely don't know what the answer is, but it needs to be a multi-discipline approach e.g. academic (as you have suggested), political, cultural etc.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
The liberal bias within the tech industry, and Silicon Valley in particular, runs very deep. From the top all the way down. And it's not just their internal hiring strategies and politics, it's their products and services. It's no secret that Twitter, Facebook et al are inherently liberal. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogmatic liberal ideology will suffer the consequences (as we have already seen time and time again). I genuinely don't know what the answer is, but it needs to be a multi-discipline approach e.g. academic (as you have suggested), political, cultural etc.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
The liberal bias within the tech industry, and Silicon Valley in particular, runs very deep
In The Soapbox too :laugh:
-
The liberal bias within the tech industry, and Silicon Valley in particular, runs very deep. From the top all the way down. And it's not just their internal hiring strategies and politics, it's their products and services. It's no secret that Twitter, Facebook et al are inherently liberal. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to their dogmatic liberal ideology will suffer the consequences (as we have already seen time and time again). I genuinely don't know what the answer is, but it needs to be a multi-discipline approach e.g. academic (as you have suggested), political, cultural etc.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
These people do not view the world through a liberal lens. The core philosophical difference between liberals and progressives is incompatible, i.e. individualism vs collectivism. The identity politics and intersectionality that define these people's politics are not ideas that work if you accept that identity is a function of individuality - the trademark liberal position - rather than a checklist of "oppressed" groups. Please stop calling these people liberal; it's empowering them by making it look like their tent is bigger. They are more fundamentally different from liberals then even conservatives, and hate both groups equally.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
When I see this sort of thing going on I tend to think that people who do science degrees or technical degrees should also have to read literature as part of their courses. Why read literature? Because well written literature will expose you to a lot of different views and ways of seeing the world. It would do some of these people some good to understand how small actions can escalate into more serious effects. I would recommend they see if not read The Crucible(the actual play not a film), by Arthur Miller, as a starter. There is a term "Dragon's head, snake's body" which describes this sort of phenomena where extremely technically brilliant people can also be very much emotionally childlike.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
I think you're under the mistaken assumption that this culture is a bottom-up phenomenon. That article solidified that the management and HR types are the ones that are really behind the enforcement of this agenda; how many of them do you think are STEM? I'll wager: not many.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
There may be kudos in working for a big tech firm like Google, but I'm pretty sure I'd be sacked within the week. It also seems fairly obvious that these activists have a great deal of influence over Google's products and services, including their search engine. This is why I use Duck Duck Go (I stopped using Google search over a year ago).
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
This is why I use Duck Duck Go
How is that working out? Google's agenda manages to offend me several times a year, and I keep trying other search engines, only to be very disappointed in the results (specifically around technical searches).
-
These people do not view the world through a liberal lens. The core philosophical difference between liberals and progressives is incompatible, i.e. individualism vs collectivism. The identity politics and intersectionality that define these people's politics are not ideas that work if you accept that identity is a function of individuality - the trademark liberal position - rather than a checklist of "oppressed" groups. Please stop calling these people liberal; it's empowering them by making it look like their tent is bigger. They are more fundamentally different from liberals then even conservatives, and hate both groups equally.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
I don't consider those sorts of views to be 'liberal'. It's a shame that nowadays one needs to use the words 'classical-liberal' in order to explain the concept that free-speech is not the preserve of the right but is very much a defining feature of liberalism.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I don't consider those sorts of views to be 'liberal'. It's a shame that nowadays one needs to use the words 'classical-liberal' in order to explain the concept that free-speech is not the preserve of the right but is very much a defining feature of liberalism.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
GuyThiebaut wrote:
It's a shame that nowadays one needs to use the words 'classical-liberal'
No we don't. Just don't let them have the word. Push back.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
These people do not view the world through a liberal lens. The core philosophical difference between liberals and progressives is incompatible, i.e. individualism vs collectivism. The identity politics and intersectionality that define these people's politics are not ideas that work if you accept that identity is a function of individuality - the trademark liberal position - rather than a checklist of "oppressed" groups. Please stop calling these people liberal; it's empowering them by making it look like their tent is bigger. They are more fundamentally different from liberals then even conservatives, and hate both groups equally.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
I think calling them "progressives" is being far too generous. I find the term "regressives" more appropriate. Their dogmatic ideologies don't move us forward i.e. progress us anywhere. In fact they take us backwards hence are regressive.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Dominic Burford wrote:
This is why I use Duck Duck Go
How is that working out? Google's agenda manages to offend me several times a year, and I keep trying other search engines, only to be very disappointed in the results (specifically around technical searches).
I get more impartial search results, and my searches are not tracked (and sold onto all and sundry). It's actually a great search engine. I have no intention of going back to Google.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
I think you're under the mistaken assumption that this culture is a bottom-up phenomenon. That article solidified that the management and HR types are the ones that are really behind the enforcement of this agenda; how many of them do you think are STEM? I'll wager: not many.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
You have a point and at the same time I do get that this is being pushed from the top downwards, I have personally witnessed this. The things is that many of the people at the top, in these companies, are STEM educated. The problem being that they are not willing to say to the 'progressive' parties that diversity and inclusion means allowing for all views whether or not you find them distasteful. But also on the point of people in STEM reading literature, I think there is immense value in this because one of the things about good literature is that it documents the struggles towards all the liberties we enjoy today. Literature also documents what happens when we don't stand up for values that helped us get to where we are today.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I think calling them "progressives" is being far too generous. I find the term "regressives" more appropriate. Their dogmatic ideologies don't move us forward i.e. progress us anywhere. In fact they take us backwards hence are regressive.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
That's the Dave Rubin approach, and it makes a degree of sense. I think the term "progressive" is fine, though. It doesn't help move the conversation forward when these people get defensive; they all (to a one) go straight to calling you a "Nazi" and a "fascist" and shut down. It's so consistent that it can only be a symptom of social programming. While conversation with these people is often tedious, and there is a severe temptation to play "Gotcha" with their terrible ideas (guilty), the fact is that the only way to get past this cultural moment is to engage their ideas in good faith. Know that they will not reciprocate. Hope that they might actually consider the alternative perspectives when the conversation is over. The only way to deprogram these people is to make them question these foundational ideas that they hold themselves. Anything else is just noise that divides us all further.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
That's the Dave Rubin approach, and it makes a degree of sense. I think the term "progressive" is fine, though. It doesn't help move the conversation forward when these people get defensive; they all (to a one) go straight to calling you a "Nazi" and a "fascist" and shut down. It's so consistent that it can only be a symptom of social programming. While conversation with these people is often tedious, and there is a severe temptation to play "Gotcha" with their terrible ideas (guilty), the fact is that the only way to get past this cultural moment is to engage their ideas in good faith. Know that they will not reciprocate. Hope that they might actually consider the alternative perspectives when the conversation is over. The only way to deprogram these people is to make them question these foundational ideas that they hold themselves. Anything else is just noise that divides us all further.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Nathan Minier wrote:
Hope that they might actually consider the alternative perspectives when the conversation is over.
I admire your optimism. However, having watched many Ben Shapiro videos, it's clear that many of these regressives are ideologically driven by their beliefs which have been instilled into them by their Marxist professors. When you classify any speech that disagrees with your position as "hate speech" (a professor actually stated this) then rational debate is out the question (they won't debate you as they have deemed your words as "hateful"). They have no interest in engaging in debate and exchanging ideas. Their sole purpose is to shut down all discussion that contradicts their dogmatically held positions.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
-
Nathan Minier wrote:
Hope that they might actually consider the alternative perspectives when the conversation is over.
I admire your optimism. However, having watched many Ben Shapiro videos, it's clear that many of these regressives are ideologically driven by their beliefs which have been instilled into them by their Marxist professors. When you classify any speech that disagrees with your position as "hate speech" (a professor actually stated this) then rational debate is out the question (they won't debate you as they have deemed your words as "hateful"). They have no interest in engaging in debate and exchanging ideas. Their sole purpose is to shut down all discussion that contradicts their dogmatically held positions.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
They have no interest in engaging in debate and exchanging ideas.
Exactly. That's a function of the programming, and why they need to get to a place to question these things themselves. As I said, it's a hope, but really that's the best you can do against the weight of inputs. While watching Ben "I'm more famous than you and my wife's a doctor" Shapiro videos can be fun, it's no substitute for talking to people you've known for years and realize that they're completely lost in this system. I'm not willing to give up on a fried of decades to this malignancy; I had one say in all seriousness "If you see 9 people and a Nazi talking with each other, you're looking at 10 Nazis". That's how messed up these people are. They need help, not scorn.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
That's the Dave Rubin approach, and it makes a degree of sense. I think the term "progressive" is fine, though. It doesn't help move the conversation forward when these people get defensive; they all (to a one) go straight to calling you a "Nazi" and a "fascist" and shut down. It's so consistent that it can only be a symptom of social programming. While conversation with these people is often tedious, and there is a severe temptation to play "Gotcha" with their terrible ideas (guilty), the fact is that the only way to get past this cultural moment is to engage their ideas in good faith. Know that they will not reciprocate. Hope that they might actually consider the alternative perspectives when the conversation is over. The only way to deprogram these people is to make them question these foundational ideas that they hold themselves. Anything else is just noise that divides us all further.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
Nathan Minier wrote:
The only way to deprogram these people is to make them question these foundational ideas that they hold themselves. Anything else is just noise that divides us all further
I disagree. The only way to "deprogram" them is to allow them to put their policies into effect in all their glory. When bridges start collapsing and aircraft start dropping from the sky because the project engineers were chosen to satisfy "intersectionality", rather than competence, requirements, they may come to their senses. It's gonna be tough going in the USA for a while...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
Google's Outrage Mobs and Witch Hunts[^] Pass me my pitchfork.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
Dominic Burford wrote:
Those are nothing but failed rationalizations. As an analogy if bank accepts accounts from minorities then it is 'inclusive'. If it does not accept such accounts then it is 'exclusive'. Inclusion is by the very definition broader than exclusion. They bank doesn't get to rationalize the latter behavior as 'better' by trying to claim that inclusive and exclusive are not part of the discussion or that they are not relevant even when that was the specific point. That is the same with a conservative that attempts to pass a law that allows companies to exclude('exclusive') gays. The rationalization of why they want to do that doesn't alter the fact that it is still exclusion. And the conservative also doesn't get to claim that because they are a minority that it is ok. Not even if they suffered discrimination for being a minority. Doing so is nothing but an attempt to change the subject and to providing nothing but an emotional tug to drive that subject change. In contrast a liberal position is inclusive - it is broader again by definition. And if you want to practice your religion, rather than running a business, then do feel free to do so in your home and your church. Where you can be as exclusive as you wish.