patrick.net

PeopleUnited says

You and I have an eternal soul.

Only fools believe in souls. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that arbitrary Bronze Age myth, and plenty of reasons to not from the complete lack of any evidence that souls exist to the failure of anyone who dies passing on a clear message to the living.

Your stupid heaven myth also makes no sense. A mother dies and goes to heaven. Meanwhile on Earth her daughter is brutally raped. How the fuck could the mother be in perfect bliss? Hitler goes to hell, but Hitler's mom goes to heaven. How can any mother be happy when her child is being tortured for all eternity? Oh, Hitler's mom is also in hell? Then her mother can't be happy in heaven. OK with that? Keep regressing until you get to a common ancestor of you and Hitler. That ancestor and all others can't be perfectly happy either.

The Bible is full of nothing but lies that make no sense and contradict themselves.

PeopleUnited says

It is a story about the difference between being controlled by your emotions vs. being in control of your emotions.

It fails even at that. It is not hell to be not in control of your emotions. For example, two people having passionate sex. That's heaven, not hell.

Second, it is not heaven to be in control of your emotions. Example: a man at his mother's funeral holding it inside.

Finally, even a person in complete control of his emotions can be harmed by another person in complete control of his emotions. This happens all the time. Some evils are rationally motivated and executed.

PeopleUnited says

You and I have an eternal soul.

Question: if you see one day an AI talking to you and making sense like an other human being and appearing to be conscious, will you then admit we have no soul, but that it's all mechanics.

PeopleUnited says

Tell that to Jesus when you meet Him.

What if you meet Mohamed in the afterlife and he sends you to hell for being Christian?
Or Zeus?

You have to admit that there is no proof one way or an other and so it's all the same: mythology.

Dan8267 says

PeopleUnited says

It is a story about the difference between being controlled by your emotions vs. being in control of your emotions.

It fails even at that. It is not hell to be not in control of your emotions. For example, two people having passionate sex. That's heaven, not hell.

Second, it is not heaven to be in control of your emotions. Example: a man at his mother's funeral holding it inside.

Finally, even a person in complete control of his emotions can be harmed by another person in complete control of his emotions. This happens all the time. Some evils are rationally motivated and executed.

1. Being in control of your emotions is not the same as being emotionless. Being angry vs. acting in anger is the difference. Experiencing grief vs. acting out of grief is the difference. your funeral analogy is false.

2. Sex is not an emotion. If sex was an emotion vibrators and sex bots would be worthless. your sex analogy is false

3. The story is about how to achieve divinity of experience or experience heaven. The Zen master rightly defines it as ruling over your emotions rather than letting them rule over you. That does not mean there are not other ways to also achieve divinity of experience or experience heaven on earth. your rational evil argument fails (also sex is another form of experiencing heaven on earth, but again sex is not an emotion, just ask Rin).

Heraclitusstudent says

PeopleUnited says

Tell that to Jesus when you meet Him.

What if you meet Mohamed in the afterlife and he sends you to hell for being Christian?

Or Zeus?

You have to admit that there is no proof one way or an other and so it's all the same: mythology.

The only myths are the one's that are not true. This includes any belief that contradicts the Word of God, which is freely available to anyone who will hear it, see it and respond to it.

I expect to see Mohamed in the afterlife, but he won't be sending me anywhere. Zeus may even exist, as a fallen angel or human-angel hybrid, but he won't have any power over you and I. And keep in mind, God created hell for the devil and the fallen angels. He was not intended for any human being but the devil wants to take as many people as he can with him. Many will choose to reject Jesus and the free gift of redemption that he offers to anyone who will accept Him as their savior. But if you are still reading this, God wants to show his love and mercy if you will have Him as your Lord and Savior.

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic". He was riffing hard, making sense, then botched a few bars there and killed his claim with that.

If women have preferences/worldviews/behaviors that are biologically innate in most, then by definition it's not neurotic.

That was the "Oops", the wrong note, with which Google justified his firing.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic".

Yes, you have to be extremely careful about choice of words when speaking truth to power.

They will seize on any hint of weakness in your position to justify your execution.

PeopleUnited says

I expect to see Mohamed in the afterlife, but he won't be sending me anywhere. Zeus may even exist, as a fallen angel

Pure suppositions.
Why do you believe that?
Let me tell you why: your parents believed it and they brainwashed you at a young age.
If your parents had been Muslims, you'd be an Islamic devout bending over 5 times a day toward the Levant.

PeopleUnited says

The only myths are the one's that are not true.

Myths are other just people religions.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

The guy lost the game when he called some behavior "Neurotic". He was riffing hard, making sense, then botched a few bars there and killed his claim with that.

In this interview he disarmed a lot of booby traps. Presents himself as moderate. Dismisses links with alt-right. Says he is in favor of women access tech positions, and he is only talking of what women WANT to do. Says tech guys themselves are a few percent of the male population, etc... He comes out as pretty reasonable.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-08-10/fired-engineer-damore-i-feel-google-betrayed-me-video

Heraclitusstudent says

In this interview he disarmed a lot of booby traps. Presents himself as moderate. Dismisses links with alt-right. Says he is in favor of women access tech positions, and he is only talking of what women WANT to do. Says tech guys themselves are a few percent of the male population, etc... He comes out as pretty reasonable.

He did, but that one bad word choice gave Google an excuse, because...

rando says

Yes, you have to be extremely careful about choice of words when speaking truth to power.

And if they can't find something, they'll carefully edit something, use a moment of satire as if it was an earnest statement of belief (a favorite, CNN just did this to Lord, Meghan Kelly did it to Alex Jones), or otherwise eliminate context.

In any case, the demonization of people seems to be having a reverse impact, since unlike 20 years ago you can use the internet to look people up and read/hear them for yourself. So all publicity is good publicity - for now, until YouTube and Social Media becomes totally under SJW bot control. Also, "Language Learning" AI will be used to root out "Cant" where people substitute a common word/phrase for what they really mean ("The City of the Seven Hills" instead of "Rome".)

ThreeBays says

Good read: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

TL;DR more stupid than brave.

Very good read. Please don't confuse dan, patrick, TPB, and lips with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

I thought they guy was more stupid also. Sounds like a red pill type. My theory on the lack of women in tech is that when they do go into college to do stem then after a couple of semesters dealing with the red pill crowd they say screw this I don't want to work with these anal orifices for the next 40 years and change majors. Just a thought.

My sister-in-law who is a computer programmer had an opinion on the manifesto in question. She agreed with the assertion that google is suppressing ideological debate or diversity, but thought that he should have ended with that. Going after women in STEM was just too much, and offended her as a woman who enjoys her work.

PeopleUnited says

1. Being in control of your emotions is not the same as being emotionless.

Straw man argument that doesn't address what I said.

PeopleUnited says

2. Sex is not an emotion.

People have sex because of the emotions involved. How can you not know this?

PeopleUnited says

The Zen master rightly defines it as ruling over your emotions rather than letting them rule over you.

No, that's the point. Ruling over your emotions does not prevent you from being stabbed in a robbery. Nor is there any cosmological force that causes people who fail to do so to magically get their comeuppance. Life if often unjust. It does not self-correct. To make life just requires active effort, not karma.

PeopleUnited says

That does not mean there are not other ways

Another straw man argument.

PeopleUnited says

your rational evil argument fails

I sincerely doubt you even know what I'm stating, and thus cannot judge it. But hey, prove me wrong. Clearly and accurately state what my position is. We'll see how close you get.

Quigley says

Going after women in STEM was just too much, and offended her as a woman who enjoys her work.

I don't think he was "going after" women in tech at all. To characterize it that way is to create a strawman for easy attack.

He was just coherently explaining why there are fewer women in tech, namely their greater disinterest in it, and objecting to the relentless blaming of male "sexism" for women's disinterest.

As well as objecting to shaming as a means of suppressing open discussion of the issue. He's absolutely right about that for sure.

rando says

I don't think he was "going after" women in tech at all. To characterize it that way is to create a strawman for easy attack.

People with no legitimate counterarguments always go for straw men and poisoning the well. You see that all the time on PatNet and every other forum. This is exactly what the mainstream media did to the memo's author.

Straw men and well poisonings are clear indications of weak positions.

ThreeBays says

Good read: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-manifesto-1e3773ed1788

Nope, sucky read that confirms yet again everything James pointed out. Just start with the very first line:

You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.

Yet another disingenuous strawman. Will they never end? James never once even implied we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers. Not in the least.

And that article continues with the usual relentless shaming. The "author does not understand" over and over and over ad nauseum.

Lol.

rando says

And that article continues with the usual relentless shaming. The "author does not understand" over and over and over ad nauseum.

Must be written by a PatNet user.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

And if they can't find something, they'll carefully edit something

Yes, this is a core technique of "fake news". When you go see the original video of an interview then you clearly understand how the press is twisting everything to fit an agenda. They keep their credibility in the gutter this way. It's sad, and it's happening right now with James Damore.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

In any case, the demonization of people seems to be having a reverse impact, since unlike 20 years ago you can use the internet to look people up and read/hear them for yourself. So all publicity is good publicity - for now, until YouTube and Social Media becomes totally under SJW bot control.

That reverse impact effect is exactly how Trump got elected. Every press hissy fit that put Trump in the headlines again was another billion dollars effectively donated to his campaign. That was really beautiful to behold.

When YouTube and the rest of social media have completely exterminated honest open discussion, patrick.net will be the place to be! Looking forward to it.

bob2356 says

when they do go into college to do stem then after a couple of semesters dealing with the red pill crowd they say screw this I don't want to work with these anal orifices for the next 40 years and change majors

I teach at a university, have a large research group that is about 20% women, and can confidently say that this is absolutely not the reason. The reason, at least in my field, is the length of highly competitive studies coupled with time investment - I have heard this over and over from women in my research group. By the time they have a secure job, they are in early to middle 30's and many of them think that it is too late to have children. So-called "red pill" crowd is not present save a few individuals, as most students are geeks who can not tie their own shoes in the morning and have a very tenuous grip on surrounding reality. You may not believe this, but some are not aware of US presidential elections, at the same time being very good at research. Furthermore, if some woman is put off by someone spouting sexist nonsense, what will be her success in real job where people back-stab each other for promotions, competition is unfair, etc.

drBu says

By the time they have a secure job, they are in early to middle 30's and many of them think that it is too late to have children.

real women want to raise a family. some might argue that it's... biological!

drBu says

By the time they have a secure job, they are in early to middle 30's and many of them think that it is too late to have children.

Declining female fertility with age is a biological reality. Is the mere mention of that fact sexist?

rando says

Is the mere mention of that fact sexist?

Many facts are sexist, and reality of life is sexist as well.

rando says

Nope, sucky read that confirms yet again everything James pointed out. Just start with the very first line:

You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.

Yet another disingenuous strawman. Will they never end? James never once even implied we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers. Not in the least.

Maybe this guy is a genius. He could sue for liable every single media outlet that misrepresented what he said. He traded a 40 to 90 hour a week STEM job for potentially millions of dollars and never having to work again.

drBu says

I teach at a university, have a large research group that is about 20% women, and can confidently say that this is absolutely not the reason.

If women, as a group, invested as much energy and efforts into coding as they do complaining about men, the patriarchy, they would dominate the tech industry.

drBu says

I teach at a university, have a large research group that is about 20% women, and can confidently say that this is absolutely not the reason. The reason, at least in my field, is the length of highly competitive studies coupled with time investment - I have heard this over and over from women in my research group. By the time they have a secure job, they are in early to middle 30's and many of them think that it is too late to have children

and so many women (50% of medical school students now) become doctors how? It's very highly competitive with a bigger commitment of time (4 years undergrad, 4 years med school 4-7 years residency with hours averaging over 90 a week) and they don't get a job at all until they are in early to mid 30's. Your anecdotal experience doesn't jib with real life.

ThreeBays says

Oh I see, you think his outcome is not because of his own actions and lack of social intelligence. His outcome is because of unfair systemic bias. Sounds familiar.

His own actions did not merit being fired.

That outcome was a perfect example of the extreme and authoritarian response he described in his document, nicely proving his point that "some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed".

The outcome was indeed exactly because of unfair systemic bias against discussing those ideas.

bob2356 says

and so many women (50% of medical school students now) become doctors how? It's very highly competitive with a bigger commitment of time (4 years undergrad, 4 years med school 4-7 years residency with hours averaging over 90 a week) and they don't get a job at all until they are in early to mid 30's. Your anecdotal experience doesn't jib with real life.

So women are perpetually oppressed, harassed by so-called red pill people, and this is the reason why they do not go into engineering and hard sciences? I have not seen that here, and I have not seen it anywhere. What I have seen is that women have scholarships which men do not have, that they are invited to conferences more than men, basically just because they are women, etc. If there is any discrimination, it goes the other way and there is still shortage of women in these disciplines. May be the reason is not commitment length, may be they just do not like to be closeted in a lab without much contact with other humans, while men are OK with that.

With respect to my answer, this was what i got from women when I ask why they stop at BS or MS level as opposed to getting PhD. Perhaps med schools have different dynamics. Or they are lying to me, which is unlikely. And one can ask why surgeons are much more likely to be men? Is that specialty extremely sexist while other med specialties are not?

bob2356 says

and so many women (50% of medical school students now) become doctors how? It's very highly competitive with a bigger commitment of time (4 years undergrad, 4 years med school 4-7 years residency with hours averaging over 90 a week) and they don't get a job at all until they are in early to mid 30's. Your anecdotal experience doesn't jib with real life.

And medical students are never red pill people that discourage women from entering that field?

ThreeBays says

Oh I see, you think his outcome is not because of his own actions and lack of social intelligence. His outcome is because of unfair systemic bias. Sounds familiar.

Yeah, we know. Lowering the bar to hire more women is "taking away white male privilege", and if someone complains about it, he lacks the social intelligence to recognize that his being discriminated against to paper over biology is in fact fair.

We need women in this field - at all cost.

I like it!

http://www.marchongoogle.com/

OK, I plan to be in the crowd on August 19th.

I like the Think Different posters comparing Apple to Google, but am quite certain that Apple would stomp on any open discussion of the PC Koran as well.

TwoScoopsMcGee says

He did, but that one bad word choice gave Google an excuse, because...

I’d say his aim was perfect: anti-PC and inflammatory enough as to provoke a huge moralistic witch hunt reflex against it, but true and reasonable enough that it’s very hard to justify it’s firing. A lot of men are watching this and thinking “hmm… that makes sense to me.”.
Sundar Pichai cancelled a planned meeting at Google, citing security fears, but it appears it would just be very difficult for him to justify the firing in front of a crowd, many of whom agree with the memo.

In fact the firing is dubious enough to raise calls for Pichai resignation, EVEN IN THE NYT:

Sundar Pichai Should Resign as Google’s C.E.O.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sundar-pichai-google-memo-diversity.html?ref=opinion
———
[…]
Geoffrey Miller, a prominent evolutionary psychologist, wrote in Quillette, “For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate.”
[…]
What we have is a legitimate tension. Damore is describing a truth on one level; his sensible critics are describing a different truth, one that exists on another level. He is championing scientific research; they are championing gender equality. It takes a little subtlety to harmonize these strands, but it’s doable.
[…]
As Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic, “I cannot remember the last time so many outlets and observers mischaracterized so many aspects of a text everyone possessed.” Various reporters and critics apparently decided that Damore opposes all things Enlightened People believe and therefore they don’t have to afford him the basic standards of intellectual fairness.
[…]
The mob that hounded Damore was like the mobs we’ve seen on a lot of college campuses. We all have our theories about why these moral crazes are suddenly so common. I’d say that radical uncertainty about morality, meaning and life in general is producing intense anxiety. Some people embrace moral absolutism in a desperate effort to find solid ground. They feel a rare and comforting sense of moral certainty when they are purging an evil person who has violated one of their sacred taboos.

This is a nice explanation for the cause of PC outrage about (former) google guy's memo:

From https://twitter.com/sentientist/status/894959693822558209