marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
[personal profile] marahmarie

I'm so glad to see this dude go, there are no words. Except for these words, in order of the sheer, stereoscopic brightness of my outrage:

Let's not stereotype the stereotyping, now

First paragraph: "and [I] don’t endorse using stereotypes." Last paragraph - actually a bullet point (emphasis mine): "Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

So he doesn't endorse using stereotypes though they are sooooooo accurate aren't they for real so why aren't we using them to train Google employees, already? but hey, he's gotta be politically correct, so he denies in the face of all his carefully hand-crafted evidence to the contrary that they should be used to train people, or something.

You have to consider how insidiousness the creepy-crawly, "I'm not really picking your pocket so stop yelling at me to give your wallet back"-ness of him is, and I'm only up to the first offending snippets.

He thinks stereotypes are bang-on, perfect representations of everyone he thinks fits into one, so much so that they should be used, in his opinion, to teach Google employees how to do their jobs, which to his mind, all involve ceaseless stereotyping in order to succeed. Then he claims he would never "endorse" or "advocate" the use of stereotypes, but hey wait, he just did.

Don't alienate the aliens, now

Some bullet point, way in: "Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require [SIC! Not proofreading your lousy manifesto is NOT a good example of "conscientiousness"!] for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."

OK, where to start: Bart here has a lot to say about conservatives. He thinks they're more conscientious, a bullshit opinion which he's confused with "obedience to authoritarian dictatorships", which is "not hardly" the same thing, self-sic sic sic. The conscientiousness he so prizes is "self-reported" in most studies that have been done.

Conservatives also self-report being "less open", "less exploratory", and "less open to change"...they're crashing bores, in other words, who are literally (not just self-reported) afraid of everything.

Not the folks I'd want chatting me up at my next dinner party; maybe the ones I'd leave in the yard with "gun for grizzly" to calm dear old Betsy, cowering away inside.

Don't be evil? Heh...don't be "agreeable", now

Some paragraph, way in: "In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable [SIC!] than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women..."

One sentence at a time: "humans are generally biased towards protecting females". Obviously he's not kept up with history, be it ancient (Viking women) or current (female Israeli soldiers; women serving in the US military and fighting for combat spots even as we speak).

"this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men." Eh, uh...no. Women are "generally more cooperative and areeable" because historically speaking, if we aren't, we can be hurt emotionally, physically and economically or even killed just over not being "nice enough". But even given all that, I take offense at the idea that I should be agreeable just because I have parts the author doesn't and vice versa. It isn't part of my "just being me" job description, kthanksbai.

"We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women"....OK, yeah, because? Because men have dominated every arena of public and private life since this country started, so having programs to "protect" us - like having programs to "protect" other vulnerable people - is necessary only because of the inborn privilege men have been inoculated with for hundreds of years to confer them with immunity from competition with us.


It goes on and on - for literally ten pages - but I think I've unloaded the worst of my wrath at this point. Knowing he was fired is the least it will take to smooth over the very real damage he's caused thousands of people with his tired, low-res, 100% recycled (tell me conservatives aren't going green!) claptrap. Don't miss the part where he co-opts our "safe spaces" by calling PC culture "psychologically unsafe" because conservatives are just big, soft, supermelty snowflakes, too!

From:
Anonymous (will be screened)
OpenID (will be screened)
Identity URL: 
User (will be screened)
Account name:
Password:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
Subject:
HTML doesn't work in the subject.

Message:

 
Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.