Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ram23

Political Correctness

Recommended Posts

Like I've said before, I actually think it boils down to the fact that people generally don't want to work with a bunch of dudes....dudes included. W

 

This is actually good insight here and a reason to have more women around.  Hyper masculine spaces tend to get toxic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said before, I actually think it boils down to the fact that people generally don't want to work with a bunch of dudes....dudes included. W

 

This is actually good insight here and a reason to have more women around.  Hyper masculine spaces tend to get toxic.

 

They're called brogrammers! It's a real thing! Lol. It seems particularly rampant at startups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Dude let's tap the keg and then crunch some code. Daaamnnn...I'd like to fork her repository!" Haha.

 

Sorry, that's my best brogrammer impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our office is like that. We are afraid to bring in a woman to work here because it could create a tinder box. Just need to wait a bit for some of the hyper masculine guys to grow up some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ They will when they have daughters maybe. I don't know. Thing is I am not about to blow up the culture to have a social experiment when things are working fine. Not saying they could not be better, but the results are sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I am afraid there may be a sexual harassment lawsuit if we mix women with them. I am not proud of the culture that has developed but tolerate it as long as the results are there right now, hoping they will mellow with age.  We are a small business and sometimes you just have to put up with certain things when you are trying to make ends meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that offices can afford to "wait around for guys to grow up." I think there's real advantages to having both men and women on a team and I'm sure those advantages can be backed up by data. The guy at Google probably made valid arguments but women tend to be better communicators, better multi-taskers and are more collaborative than competitive. That's extremely valuable in software development and probably any other field. They're also just fun to be around!  It's not that hard to refrain from sexual harassment and belittling women in the work place. I just don't get it. I would tell my guys that there's a zero tolerance policy and that they can either grow up or be terminated, if it becomes an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm underestimating how easily you could be sued, even if you swiftly deal with the problem. Seems like a valid concern but it's definitely a situation that shouldn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If women can and continue to serve in the military despite the hyper masculine mentality and culturally accepted sexual harassment and abuse, and still continue to enlist, then I think they can survive pretty much any job regardless of the douche culture.

 

Also, I wouldn't advertise your violating employment laws, Brutus; it really isn't that hard to dox someone and file a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ As a private company with only a few employees, many of those rules would not apply to a company our size. If we grow our employee base then it would become a concern and we would have to address this.

 

We have another company that has a much different culture and we have a mix of genders in that role. Just the way it works out.

 

Just giving an example of some of the complexities a small business faces in the political correctness environment. When you have a 4 employee company, you may not love the culture, but it makes it hard to get rid of someone who accounts for 1/3 of the revenue because they may be a douche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the dumbest argument I've ever read in my life. Women can survive the military so they can survive anything and therefore, we can belittle the issue. Give me a break. The military culture isn't all that hyper-masculine. Literally every job in the civilian world is a job in the military. Most of the military isn't infantrymen. They're cooks, barbers, accountants, doctors, you name it. Get out of here with that nonsense, for real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious? That's f-ing hilarious. I heard that the Army actually has one of the top culinary schools in the nation but I'm not an expert on the military and what all is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go read the manifesto for yourself. Tell me that if a coworker published that on a company message board, you wouldn't feel weird about working with them. I mean, it has 12 subheadings, multiple charts and graphs, bulleted lists, hyperlinks, etc. Tell me that someone who takes the time to write something of that length about this topic isn't somewhat extreme in their views.

 

Also, it's just so, so wrong in so many ways.

 

The guy says that "women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men" and that "more men may like coding because it requires systemizing". Not only is that a massively sweeping generalization, it's wrong for two big reasons:

  • If it's true that women are more social and men are more focused on the work, then how does brogrammer culture exist? Brogrammer culture is a big frat party, socializing and playing foosball and drinking beer in the office. So why is that type of socializing okay but women socializing is a weakness?
  • The actual job of programming, despite what many people believe, is not just sitting at your desk typing on a computer all day. I have been a software developer for over 8 years and I spend far more time in meeting and discussions than sitting at my desk typing. You have to talk to the clients and the people who use the software to gather requirement and get feedback from them. You have to present your work to management and all stakeholders. You have to work one-on-one with QA engineers. You have daily meeting with the entire team where everybody talks about their previous day's progress and obstacles they have to doing their work. Basically, if you think that being a programmer does not utilize any social skills, you're completely wrong. (I can only think of a single project over the last 8 years where this was not the case, and that was a 2 week project where all of the requirements were already finished and they basically needed a "warm body" to come in to do the coding work. But that was a single 2 week long project out of the last 8 years of my job.) So maybe women are actually better suited for the job than men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^There used to be way more women in important computing positions up through the early '80s such as Anita Sinclair and Carol Shaw before the nerds came and ran them off. The early computer and video game people were much more hippie than neckbeard and knew all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is not so much he got fired for suggesting ways to implement things Google has claimed to be working towards as they fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.  That’s politics, and California is one of the few states that explicitly forbids firing people based on such views.  He’s got a very strong wrongful termination case.

In a real way though, this isn’t at its root about politics.  This has its roots in the long term efforts of technologically adept people in the industry to minimize the importance of “soft skills”.  The salesmen, “facilitators”, networkers, and schmoozers naturally hate that idea.

 

They’ve clearly taken over at Google, which could be why rumor has it a lot of their actual tech breakthroughs are coming from smaller subcontractors.

 

One point he made really made sense, in context.  He stated that conservatives are better at keeping things working, rather than changing them for the sake of change.  Look at Facebook.  They are constantly fiddling with new features of dubious reliability, while their integral browser is slower than the IRS refunds department and more prone to crashing than Lindsey Lohan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, what's quite funny about this situation is that the author seems like the type of guy who would accuse liberals of being "snowflakes" and being too "politically correct". And yet, the Suggestions section of his manifesto is nothing but "stop being mean to conservatives", "it's not fair that Google has some programs that cater to only women or minorities". The hypocrisy is amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is not so much he got fired for suggesting ways to implement things Google has claimed to be working towards as they fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.  That’s politics, and California is one of the few states that explicitly forbids firing people based on such views.  He’s got a very strong wrongful termination case.

In a real way though, this isn’t at its root about politics.  This has its roots in the long term efforts of technologically adept people in the industry to minimize the importance of “soft skills”.  The salesmen, “facilitators”, networkers, and schmoozers naturally hate that idea.

 

They’ve clearly taken over at Google, which could be why rumor has it a lot of their actual tech breakthroughs are coming from smaller subcontractors.

 

One point he made really made sense, in context.  He stated that conservatives are better at keeping things working, rather than changing them for the sake of change.  Look at Facebook.  They are constantly fiddling with new features of dubious reliability, while their integral browser is slower than the IRS refunds department and more prone to crashing than Lindsey Lohan.

 

 

Facebook now has a conservative user base, so that is another point of friction between the Facebook HQ and their largely small town and rural users. I suppose changing the interface often could be an effort to lure back in the liberals that have largely abandoned the site in the past few years. I feel that strategy is not going to be effective in retaining Dems and will upset the base. Facebook does much better with Dems with their Instagram subsidiary.

 

Zuckerburg knows this change happened and is trying to roll with it, but when so many people were hired by the company already to change things all the time do you just fire them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is not so much he got fired for suggesting ways to implement things Google has claimed to be working towards as they fired him for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”.  That’s politics, and California is one of the few states that explicitly forbids firing people based on such views.  He’s got a very strong wrongful termination case.

In a real way though, this isn’t at its root about politics.  This has its roots in the long term efforts of technologically adept people in the industry to minimize the importance of “soft skills”.  The salesmen, “facilitators”, networkers, and schmoozers naturally hate that idea.

 

They’ve clearly taken over at Google, which could be why rumor has it a lot of their actual tech breakthroughs are coming from smaller subcontractors.

 

One point he made really made sense, in context.  He stated that conservatives are better at keeping things working, rather than changing them for the sake of change.  Look at Facebook.  They are constantly fiddling with new features of dubious reliability, while their integral browser is slower than the IRS refunds department and more prone to crashing than Lindsey Lohan.

 

 

Facebook now has a conservative user base, so that is another point of friction between the Facebook HQ and their largely small town and rural users. I suppose changing the interface often could be an effort to lure back in the liberals that have largely abandoned the site in the past few years. I feel that strategy is not going to be effective in retaining Dems and will upset the base. Facebook does much better with Dems with their Instagram subsidiary.

 

Zuckerburg knows this change happened and is trying to roll with it, but when so many people were hired by the company already to change things all the time do you just fire them?

 

Also the suburbanites, 30 or so and up.  Including that 45-60 demographic that has been the most conservative age group in US history since they became old enough to vote.  People I went to school with that were by no means science/tech oriented are not only on but active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't make this stuff up:

 

ESPN pulls Asian-American announcer from Virginia football game because he has a Confederate general's name

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-asian-american-announcer-from-virginia-football-game-because-has-confederate-generals-name.html

 

In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Va., ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of Virginia football game -- because his name is Robert Lee.

 

Lee, an Asian-American sportscaster who started with the network in 2016, was moved to a different game "simply because of the coincidence of his name," ESPN said, referencing the Confederate general Robert E. Lee...

 

ESPN, which has faced accusations of liberal bias that some observers believe has led to a downtick in viewership, said it moved its announcer to the Youngstown State game at Pittsburgh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not really. This was more about giving a young broadcaster a chance to not have to deal with a bunch of nonsense.

 

 

DH44-ViWAAAKItZ.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand how the concept of using the Golden Rule in terms of law and social interaction is such a huge boogeyman for the Right.  To me, it speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, not really. This was more about giving a young broadcaster a chance to not have to deal with a bunch of nonsense.

 

 

 

ESPN should be admitting that the entire thing is silly nonsense, and that they won't ever reasign their employees because they think they're name might upset people - but I see now that instead of that, they're doubling down and trying, rather unconvincingly, to somehow spin it to be about protecting the employee.

 

Who issued that statement by the way? And why is some random, unrelated reporter posting a screenshot of it on Twitter? That doesn't seem official in any capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't make this stuff up:

 

ESPN pulls Asian-American announcer from Virginia football game because he has a Confederate general's name

 

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/08/22/espn-pulls-asian-american-announcer-from-virginia-football-game-because-has-confederate-generals-name.html

 

In the wake of the events in Charlottesville, Va., ESPN decided to pull one of its announcers from calling a University of Virginia football game -- because his name is Robert Lee.

 

Lee, an Asian-American sportscaster who started with the network in 2016, was moved to a different game "simply because of the coincidence of his name," ESPN said, referencing the Confederate general Robert E. Lee...

 

ESPN, which has faced accusations of liberal bias that some observers believe has led to a downtick in viewership, said it moved its announcer to the Youngstown State game at Pittsburgh.

jiFfM.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

I didn't say that...I was merely commenting on the reaction of those on the right.  And it seems to have validated to some degree ESPN's concerns about letting Lee call the game.

 

Is it silly? Yes.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  But who cares?  It's a freaking UVA football game.  The guy literally just started his career last year, it's not like he has cache.  It was "mutually agreed upon" so as not to distract from college football.  That's right...ESPN wanted to "stick to sports" and now conservatives are outraged.  (This has been a rallying cry for the alt-right/conservatives for a few years now...ESPN is just too political/liberal!)

 

For a group who routinely calls out liberals for being "triggered" about the most meaningless things, this is some hilarious irony.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

What, why, and how ESPN did what they did is reasonable.

 

Making this decision into some kind of contrived inflection point is irrational.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now conservatives are triggered over who is calling the UVA game that no one is going to watch?  Who are the snowflakes, exactly?

 

If you don't think that it's an absolute joke that someone was pulled from a broadcast because of their birth name... then idk what to tell ya.

 

I didn't say that...I was merely commenting on the reaction of those on the right.  And it seems to have validated to some degree ESPN's concerns about letting Lee call the game.

 

Is it silly? Yes.  Is it dumb?  Yes.  But who cares?  It's a freaking UVA football game.  The guy literally just started his career last year, it's not like he has cache.  It was "mutually agreed upon" so as not to distract from college football.  That's right...ESPN wanted to "stick to sports" and now conservatives are outraged.  (This has been a rallying cry for the alt-right/conservatives for a few years now...ESPN is just too political/liberal!)

 

For a group who routinely calls out liberals for being "triggered" about the most meaningless things, this is some hilarious irony.

 

I agree, the far right are bigger "snowflakes" than most.

 

 

But just for a second consider: would the left support removing someone from a broadcast because their name was Ayman al Zawahiri or Abu al Baghdadi?

 

Robert E Lee as well as the names represented above have terrible terrible pasts linked with their names, but I think only Robert Lee would suffer this fate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False outrage.  No need for everyone to get their panties in a bunch over this.  I find it silly only because I don't think there would have been all that many jokes or memes.

 

I feel sorry for the guy simply because his parents chose to give him that name.  The name Adolf was fairly popular in Germany until after WWII and has now pretty much disappeared.  Would you name your son Osama?  In reference to Romney using "Mitt", Obama once quipped "I wish I could use my middle name".  I certainly wouldn't name my son Richard if my last name could be used in any combo with 'Dick'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False outrage.  No need for everyone to get their panties in a bunch over this.  I find it silly only because I don't think there would have been all that many jokes or memes.

 

I feel sorry for the guy simply because his parents chose to give him that name.  The name Adolf was fairly popular in Germany until after WWII and has now pretty much disappeared.  Would you name your son Osama?  In reference to Romney using "Mitt", Obama once quipped "I wish I could use my middle name".  I certainly wouldn't name my son Richard if my last name could be used in any combo with 'Dick'.

 

In addition to being a genocidal maniac, Hitler ruined so much stuff: That mustache style, the Swastika - which has its roots DEEP in Ethiopian Christianity, the name Adolf, being a Hipster art-school reject... all ruined forever because of that jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Civil War wasn't on their minds when they named him.

 

Right. And I don't think its "fake outrage"... If he would've went by Bobby instead of Robert, he'd probably still be on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ There has to be "outrage" for there to be "false outrage." So far as I can tell, no one is outraged or otherwise has panties in a bunch over this. My initial, and only reaction, was an ever so slight snicker at the absurdity of it. You won't find me taking to the streets in protest, tearing down statues, hosting discussion groups at the local coffee shop, or boycotting ESPN. I don't think you'll find much of that at all, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I certainly hope not, but it does seem to bother you.  Maybe your panties aren't in a bunch, but only slightly twisted in that annoying way.  Certainly bothered you enough to post about it.

 

On your other point, there doesn't need to be real outrage for there to be false outrage.  That's pretty much your trolling M.O.  You fake outrage at things you really aren't outraged about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESPN thing, IMO, is not PC.  What it seems to me is that some people really seemed to have no real concept of what the ongoing controversy is with Confederate statues, etc.  Simply inadvertently having the same name as a Confederate soldier or general is not in and of itself offensive, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it would be.  This is, for me, a very poor attempted application of what a few people thought was a good PC choice when instead it is an example of a group of people who really have no idea about the context of current events nor the actual goal of the PC movement.  Overall, though, it's not that big a deal, and I find it interesting that this is something that gets the Right into a frenzy of outrage, but NOT real offenses like honoring traitors and people fighting for the subjugation of black people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point my friend made that I hadn't really considered is the protection that this provided to Robert Lee... That's more reasonable to me,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESPN thing, IMO, is not PC.  What it seems to me is that some people really seemed to have no real concept of what the ongoing controversy is with Confederate statues, etc.  Simply inadvertently having the same name as a Confederate soldier or general is not in and of itself offensive, and it's ridiculous to suggest that it would be.  This is, for me, a very poor attempted application of what a few people thought was a good PC choice when instead it is an example of a group of people who really have no idea about the context of current events nor the actual goal of the PC movement.  Overall, though, it's not that big a deal, and I find it interesting that this is something that gets the Right into a frenzy of outrage, but NOT real offenses like honoring traitors and people fighting for the subjugation of black people. 

 

 

With all the outrage over Lee, it is important to remember that America was a much different country back then. We were a collection of states as opposed to a Union, more akin to the UAE. People did not consider themselves Americans first but rather they were Virginians, Ohioans, New Yorkers, Vermonters, etc.  Given that mindset, you would have to understand why Lee would serve the post that he did as General of the Confederate Army. He did not agree with the war or succession from the Union but he was a Virginian first, and that patriotic duty led him to serve his state. He was prepared to lead the Union Army and had discussions with Lincoln about this until Virginia seceded. While looking back at this through the lens of today, it may seem traitorous, but in 1860's logic, to leave your state to serve the Union army would have been deemed more traitorous. The nationalistic pride of USA USA really didn't begin to take shape until after the war, and was fed more by the industrial revolution and the influx of immigrants all over creating our melting pot society. 

 

I think it is important to keep that in context before castigating the individual to the scrap heap of history. He did have many accomplishments he should be recognized for, but he was also a flawed man too, like all of us and all our leaders.  Let's  keep things in perspective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is important to keep that in context before castigating the individual to the scrap heap of history. He did have many accomplishments he should be recognized for, but he was also a flawed man too, like all of us and all our leaders.  Let's  keep things in perspective 

 

Could you name his other accomplishments here please for reference?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, being the president of a couple of universities elevates him to have statues of himself erected all over the Southern States (often in a military pose)?


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The heroes of our Revolution and Founding were imperfect men remembered primarily for their positive contributions to our country and for adding their political philosophy to the world.

 

The leaders of the Confederacy might have been honorable men, but their life's work was to preserve the enslavement of other human beings.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, being the president of a couple of universities elevates him to have statues of himself erected all over the Southern States (often in a military pose)?

 

At VMI and the Cittidel and West Point (where he made significant contributions) , it would be appropriate for the military pose. Honoring him all over the South the way they do is a bit extreme, however, recognizing him at military institutions and Wash & Lee is very appropriate and he should be recognized for his contributions to those institutions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

 

Nobody is arguing that he was on the wrong side of history however, to go back to the time and argue he is to the level of Hitler and Stalin is absurd.  Sitting in the year 2017 and having someone defend the Confederacy and fight for its right to exist is morally wrong, however, when you look at the man and judgment from the 1860's perspective, and perspective of how the US was viewed, you can at least understand how he would make the wrong choice. 

 

Contrast this to Hitler and Stalin who by 1930's standards were brutal barbarians. Putting Lee to that level is just absurd

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that they study the military strategies of Mao and Stalin and Hitler at our military schools, but they don't "honor" them with statues. 

 

There is absolutely nothing good that came out of the confederacy.  It was just the wealthy trying to preserve an English-style aristocracy dependent on cheap farm labor.  As they do now, that era's wealthy tricked middle and lower class whites into thinking something other then the landed gentry was the problem. 

 

Nobody is arguing that he was on the wrong side of history however, to go back to the time and argue he is to the level of Hitler and Stalin is absurd.  Sitting in the year 2017 and having someone defend the Confederacy and fight for its right to exist is morally wrong, however, when you look at the man and judgment from the 1860's perspective, and perspective of how the US was viewed, you can at least understand how he would make the wrong choice. 

 

Contrast this to Hitler and Stalin who by 1930's standards were brutal barbarians. Putting Lee to that level is just absurd

 

Um... except for the fact that there were plenty of people in Lee's time and long before him that considered slavery to be morally abhorrent and were condemning it left and right.  Southerners absolutely despised Lincoln for his positions against the practice.  So to say that Lee was merely a product of his time is intellectually dishonest.  He was well aware of how many people opposed slavery and what the foundations of the Confederacy were, and simply chose to support them, and not a man caught up in some difficult choice between state loyalty and his own conscience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...