Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nullBolt]

No man.  Everything I want to be true is totally true.  It's other people who are mislead.  Universal fact.  Even when I'm describing other people's views, I know what they believe better then they do.

 

Nice try. In the future, back up your opinions with facts before trying to tear down other people's.

[Orange Wizard]

Jeez, can you stop shitposting now? It's really dragging the thread down.

[nullBolt]

Jeez, can you stop shitposting now? It's really dragging the thread down.

I think that's what he's trying to do. Ruin the thread so it gets locked so no people can see inconvenient truths that he doesn't like. It's a common tactic online.

[mainiac]

Okay, you can believe that if you want.

[nullBolt]

Okay, you can believe that if you want.

Please prove me wrong.

[mainiac]

Prove my intent?

[Reelya]

EDIT: No, don't stoop to a back and forth. Actually cite good data and studies instead and ignore that.

For the record, i never called out any research cited by anyone as "shoddy" or flawed. It's all good data. But not every piece of data is relevant to every problem.

For example we have some hypotheticals about science hiring biases. Those are good to know. But actual employment data is always going to trump that. What that data suggests is that in the long run, ability and hard work determine the market value of your skills, not other people's momentary biases.

We have employment data ("researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York" if you're interested) that suggests women graduates out-earn men by a good margin in every engineering field. Spreading that knowledge could actually boost more women to view engineering as a good field to go into. Mainstream economics journals are repeating the findings, but no feminist-related site seems remotely interested in reporting on this. Which seems odd if someone's stated goal was encouraging more women into engineering.

[nullBolt]

Prove my intent?

It's quite easy to prove an intent with actions that lend themselves to that intent.

[Orange Wizard]

Enough, please.

[SirQuiamus]

Can I distract you from your shitposting with a good article that shamelessly panders to my favourite preconception, namely – you guessed it – that CAPITALISM RUINS EVERYTHING (yes, even feminism).

“Diversity training” largely serves as malpractice insurance for human resources. Companies know that at any moment they could find their name trending on Twitter as the outrage of the day. “We held a diversity training” is something legal can say to offload liability: “we told people we expected something out of them, so it’s their fault for not following whatever abstract, ill-defined advice they were given, not our fault for ignoring behavior going on in our office.” Hiring a diversity speaker costs less than a lawsuit, and thus there exists a cottage industry of professional-class women who travel the country to lecture engineers about how their very existence upsets professional-class women. Companies trumpet the commencement of diversity initiatives in press releases and on social media, but follow-ups describing the concrete achievements — or failures — of such initiatives are curiously hard to find.

Why doesn’t diversity training work?

Maybe it’s because the people currently selling it — and buying it — don’t want it to.

In economics, Goodhart’s law states, “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Thanks to case law in the United States, “we held a diversity training” is now a measure which, having become a target, is no longer useful as a measure. It is also a market — but it is a market for what the buyers want to buy. As is usual when buyers have their wallets open, there are always people willing to sell to them. Even, as it happens, some of the most vocal you’re-either-with-us-or-you’re-against-us feminists.

E: added links as a further distraction

[Bohandas]

As I said, what er need to do is obscure race and sex. That's the only way to prevent hiring and promotion decisions from being based on race.

[nullBolt]

Can I distract you from your shitposting with a good article that shamelessly panders to my favourite preconception, namely – you guessed it – that CAPITALISM RUINS EVERYTHING (yes, even feminism).

Capitalism is the worst system except for every other system. Now, unrestricted commercialism, that's something I have a problem with.

As I said, what er need to do is obscure race and sex. That's the only way to prevent hiring and promotion decisions from being based on race.

Everyone walks around inside a tent with a voice modulator inside and no one is allowed to see each other without the tent.

Honestly sounds pretty comfy.

[Reelya]

The most interesting point in that article was that people from the diversity-training field are actively trying to backstab more reasonable feminist efforts to improve tech hiring processes through measurable and actionable changes, which amount to more than just yelling "don't be sexist" over and over. (/exaggeration)

The feminists who got eviscerated there by the twitter-mob of women who "just happened" to also be in the diversity-training industry, were actually planning to create a series of videos hosted by reputable experts, about how to implement proper diversity systems into your business, funded by a kickstarter, then just provide that to whoever wants it. That would have actually led to a quality-control situation. Those videos become a resource, companies give feedback on the ideas and whether they work, cyclic process, improves diversity in an open, debatable manner. Everyone wins. But you can't have that, diversity trainers need their regular paychecks, so they got a smear campaign instead of support for this thing that would have done a TON more for women in tech than FemFreq.

[Loud Whispers]

Holy shit my posts would actually improve the quality of the thread

As I said, what er need to do is obscure race and sex. That's the only way to prevent hiring and promotion decisions from being based on race.

Don't forget names, you can usually tell someone's background roughly based on name alone. Certain names for example are council flat, others are public school, others are big bank cheese e.t.c.

[scrdest]

Holy shit my posts would actually improve the quality of the thread

As I said, what er need to do is obscure race and sex. That's the only way to prevent hiring and promotion decisions from being based on race.

Don't forget names, you can usually tell someone's background roughly based on name alone. Certain names for example are council flat, others are public school, others are big bank cheese e.t.c.

Well, if you seriously wanted to obscure the other two, you'd need to do that anyway. I mean, Mary Worthington-Smythe is unlikely to turn out to be a Brazilian male. Plus, obscuring the personal details that way would allow you to quote The Prisoner at every job interview.