|
Post by Optimus on Aug 11, 2017 13:25:12 GMT -5
[]A Question for the Moderator. Is the personal rancor in this thread an example of this... sarcasm or disparagement directed at the character of another member.... or this? sarcasm or disparagement directed at a particular argument a member has made in that particular thread.Opty has now accused both Christine and myself of lying. Where I'm from calling someone a liar is a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument. A clarification is requested. To be clear, in the quotes of mine that you posted, I said that what the person said was a "misrepresentation" or a lie ("lying"). That is a critique of an action someone took, of a statement he/she made, not a "personal attack on someone's character." I provided clear evidence both times to back up my claims. If I'd only said, "You're a liar!" with no evidence, then it could probably be considered a "personal attack on someone's character and not their argument." But, if the person's claim/argument actually is a non-factually-based distortion/misrepresentation, and it is clearly demonstrable that their argument is a non-factually-based distortion/misrepresentation, and I easily provide evidence of that, then I actually am attacking their argument because their claim/argument is, by definition, a lie:You made easily disprovable, false claims/misrepresentations about what Damore said in his memo. Christine made easily disprovable, false claims/misrepresentations about what I said. I'm not sure what other word fits that type of thing. Perhaps you have a better word to describe those actions that you wouldn't feel is "a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument?" If you have some gentle euphemism you'd rather I use to describe those types of misleading tactics in the future, please let me know and I'll try to use it instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 13:45:37 GMT -5
That's a fairly common total mischaracterization that I keep seeing regarding the memo. The far left is frothing at the mouth over this, ready and more than willing to totally misrepresent and lie about the contents of the memo in order to further their narrative, as you have done here.You're being blatantly, and unsurprisingly, disingenuous. You're either purposely distorting and lying about what I've said, or you really didn't comprehend it at all and need to go back and read it a few more times. Yet, here we are anyway, somehow, with you demonstrably lying about my position. MOD NOTE:
Dial back the personal rancor in this thread, please. If you can't, walk away.
A Question for the Moderator. Is the personal rancor in this thread an example of this... sarcasm or disparagement directed at the character of another member.... or this? sarcasm or disparagement directed at a particular argument a member has made in that particular thread.Opty has now accused both Christine and myself of lying. Where I'm from calling someone a liar is a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument. A clarification is requested. Both Opty and Christine crossed the line in this thread. I could give examples, but I'm pretty sure everyone can find them. Since the conversation got heated in general (and I didn't notice it until that was the case), I chose to give everyone a shot to cool off and dial back rather than locking the thread, giving time outs, etc. I'm going to try to do that whenever I reasonably can. Rob may take a different approach, though, so probably best for all not to count on it If it doesn't dial back, Mean Cass will come out. ETA: So, to be clear, EVERYONE KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF. One can get very heated in an argument, be downright pissed off, call each other out for poor reasoning and fallacious arguments, and yet avoid crossing the line into the personal attack. It is an art. Cultivate it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:09:12 GMT -5
Pro-tip:
Rather using the words lie, lying, or liar, say "untrue", "untruth", " incorrect", "distorted," or "false." The former words have a connotation of deliberate bad behavior that the latter words do not. They all get across the assertion that someone has misrepresented something, but the latter words leave open the possibility that it was not deliberate.
It's a subtle but very important distinction.
To note: It is completely legitimate to point out that someone is saying things that aren't true, especially if you can support it with direct evidence. But saying it was done deliberately or with malice crosses into personal attack. Go after untruth and misrepresentations with an ax, but keep accusations of ill intent to yourself.
Clear?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 14:23:10 GMT -5
Finally, if you feel someone has crossed the personal attack line, don't retaliate in kind -- report it.
I'm not always monitoring every thread, and I doubt Rob is, either. Like I said, I didn't notice this one was over the top until it escalated and was WELL over the top. In keeping with a promise I made all of y'all a while back, I'm trying to dole out a dial-it-back warning before I modsmack in all but the most over-the-top and ridiculous cases. (Again, be warned that may not be Rob's approach.) Hence I am issuing lectures rather than righteous wrath.
Seriously, every one of you is fully capable of strong arguments and they're actually more effective when you don't cross the line. Truly.
Bring your best game.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 14:31:25 GMT -5
Nothing should be suppressed from the public. I'm sorry I made it sound like I would prefer that. More education and context and even public debate on it is the way to go. Like we're doing, I think, in this tiny little corner of the internet? Well, that there's the rub, isn't it.
Person A says something. It could be used as a moment to invite thoughtful discussion and maybe everyone will learn something.
Or, just shame him, fire him, and prove his point about echo chambers.
I didn't think he should have been fired for the manifesto. I said "fuck him" for bringing biology into it (shouldn't have, as it was taken as harsher than I meant it), but I also said I don't think he's a bad person. Additionally, I don't know that he was wrong regarding poor implementation of Google's diversity program. I might disagree with his point of view and so-called facts, but that doesn't mean Google is doing diversity correctly either.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 16:28:14 GMT -5
Then again, I am very close to being persuaded by this guy that the firing was ultimately the right decision.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 11, 2017 17:30:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 11, 2017 18:01:29 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 12, 2017 0:18:41 GMT -5
[]A Question for the Moderator. Is the personal rancor in this thread an example of this... sarcasm or disparagement directed at the character of another member.... or this? sarcasm or disparagement directed at a particular argument a member has made in that particular thread.Opty has now accused both Christine and myself of lying. Where I'm from calling someone a liar is a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument. A clarification is requested. To be clear, in the quotes of mine that you posted, I said that what the person said was a "misrepresentation" or a lie ("lying"). That is a critique of an action someone took, of a statement he/she made, not a "personal attack on someone's character." I provided clear evidence both times to back up my claims. If I'd only said, "You're a liar!" with no evidence, then it could probably be considered a "personal attack on someone's character and not their argument." But, if the person's claim/argument actually is a non-factually-based distortion/misrepresentation, and it is clearly demonstrable that their argument is a non-factually-based distortion/misrepresentation, and I easily provide evidence of that, then I actually am attacking their argument because their claim/argument is, by definition, a lie:You made easily disprovable, false claims/misrepresentations about what Damore said in his memo. Christine made easily disprovable, false claims/misrepresentations about what I said. I'm not sure what other word fits that type of thing. Perhaps you have a better word to describe those actions that you wouldn't feel is "a personal attack on someone's character and not their argument?" If you have some gentle euphemism you'd rather I use to describe those types of misleading tactics in the future, please let me know and I'll try to use it instead. Please park the transparently false civility as it drips with insincerity and following your previous remarks toward Christine and myself is completely lacking in candor. My question was directed to the Moderators, Opty. NOT to you. You are not a Moderator. You're a Member and when I have a quesiton for a Member, I'll ask them for an answer. I did not ask for an explanation of what you really meant, nor do I require a definition of what "lie" means. I understand the word quite well and know when someone has called me a liar, the self-serving disassembling aside. The best person to make the call on what has or has not crossed a line is not the author of the personal attack OR the recipient of it. Neither party can make an honest claim of impartiality. That's why there's a third party and why this board has Moderators. Pro-tip: Rather using the words lie, lying, or liar, say "untrue", "untruth", " incorrect", "distorted," or "false." The former words have a connotation of deliberate bad behavior that the latter words do not. They all get across the assertion that someone has misrepresented something, but the latter words leave open the possibility that it was not deliberate. It's a subtle but very important distinction. To note: It is completely legitimate to point out that someone is saying things that aren't true, especially if you can support it with direct evidence. But saying it was done deliberately or with malice crosses into personal attack. Go after untruth and misrepresentations with an ax, but keep accusations of ill intent to yourself. Clear? As glass. I'm totally cool when someone when tries to shred my argument. I'm totally uncool when they try to shred me.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 12, 2017 0:39:22 GMT -5
If you didn't want just anyone to reply to your public post, then you shouldn't have posted it in a public thread.
If you have a question specifically for a moderator, and only want that moderator to answer it, then you should use PM. That's what the private message function is for. Otherwise, it comes across as posturing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 0:49:28 GMT -5
I think what he was looking for was for me to officially clarify for the entire board that calling someone a liar is a personal attack.
It is.
Whereas saying someone said something that is untrue is NOT a personal attack. It attacks the statement, not the person. Which is totally legit. Always, that is the line we draw -- attack the argument, not the person. Point out they're wrong and why. Leave ruminations about their motivation and intentions in making the argument at home.
That goes for everyone.
Now that it's clarified, perhaps the conversation can move back to the google manifesto or whatever the thread topic was.
I'm going to bed now, so please don't burn the place down for the next eight hours or so.
Please and thank you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Aug 12, 2017 6:10:47 GMT -5
If you didn't want just anyone to reply to your public post, then you shouldn't have posted it in a public thread. Not just anyone. Just not you as your biases are so prevalent any response you would offer would be "bullshit and hyperbole." At any rate, it's been asked and answered by Cassandra and that's all the response I need. All you're doing now is being petty and argumentative and I'm not really interested in either of those things. Now, to return to an earlier remark you made. Here's a fact. "Since the search giant started sharing diversity data in 2014, the company’s percentage of black employees in technical roles hasn’t improved at all. It was 1 percent in 2014, and it is 1 percent now. The percentage of female technical staff went up from 18 percent in 2015 to 20 percent this year." That's a fact. U mad? James Damore raised a stink over nothing. Google's diversity initiatives has not overrun the company with unqualified Black and women employees. All Damore was just a whiny, butthurt little man who really did not want to have to go to diversity training this year. But because his screed was anti-diversity those like-minded fellow travelers of the alt-Right and useful idiots of the pseudo-Left have rallied to Damore's side. I understand he's filed a lawsuit against Google, or "Goolag" as he now calls it. Unfortunately, Jimmy's bid for martyr status comes via a rather spurious and terribly vulgar bid for cleverness. Pity the poor put-upon Whiny White Guy. He carries the staggering weight of the cruel PC world is on his mighty shoulders like Atlas.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 12, 2017 9:54:35 GMT -5
I've read Zunger's essay (much-circulated now as a supposedly devastating takedown of Damore) in which he basically says Damore could not work with women and he deserves to be punched. You know, most people have to work with problematic coworkers who think less of you and might (sometimes you know for a fact) harbor views you find offensive. I am not saying declaring "Women can't code!" isn't a disqualifying statement for a would-be manager of women coders, but I still maintain Damore didn't say that. Google was entirely within its rights to fire him, and after the shitstorm he caused by circulating a memo on Google's internal network, it was inevitable they would. But I think the assumption Zunger and you are falling back on, that anyone who ever expresses doubt about equality between the sexes couldn't possibly work with women and pretty much needs to be let go, is false and more troubling that Damore working on a team with other women. As for Cynthia Lee's essay, which I've also read, she mostly talks about how much it hurts her feelings that people like Damore say the things they say, and also sexism really exists. (Which even Damore's defenders generally don't dispute.) Basically, she's really upset that Damore's essay is being read with insufficient outrage by ostensibly sympathetic people. Now, from the outset I have wondered whether Damore really, truly failed to think this through - did he actually think writing and circulating that manifesto would have no repercussions? I suppose being a young, probably stereotypical tech geek with the implied lack of social awareness, maybe he really did think he could write what he considered to be a calm, dispassionate essay about how Google should stop trying to do so much diversity. Given how quickly he seems to be going for the Wingnut Welfare circuit, though, I can't help wondering if he was planning his exit all along.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 10:03:05 GMT -5
I think what he was looking for was for me to officially clarify for the entire board that calling someone a liar is a personal attack. It is. Whereas saying someone said something that is untrue is NOT a personal attack. It attacks the statement, not the person. Which is totally legit. Always, that is the line we draw -- attack the argument, not the person. Point out they're wrong and why. Leave ruminations about their motivation and intentions in making the argument at home. That goes for everyone. Now that it's clarified, perhaps the conversation can move back to the google manifesto or whatever the thread topic was. I'm going to bed now, so please don't burn the place down for the next eight hours or so. Please and thank you. MOD NOTE: In the interest of fairness, since I've been pushed to clarify in this thread, I may as well also make it clear that it is a personal attack to say "that is a fault in your character." In fact, that's the very definition of a personal attack. I don't care if you think your fellow members have character flaws. Stick to calling out the flaws in their damn arguments.Moreover, it is totally unnecessary for anyone to announce publicly whom they have on ignore, whom they used to have on ignore, whom they'd like to put on ignore, etc. I read that shit and roll my eyes. Put people on ignore or don't, but don't announce publicly in threads that you're going to do so. Send 'em a PM (a polite one) if you really think you need to let them know you've done so. It's not necessarily a personal attack to make that announcement, but it does make me roll my eyes back so far in my head they get stuck there, which, for whatever it is worth, does no favors to my reading of your argument. That said, I think it's fine to say you're walking away from a particular thread or argument -- that serves the purpose of letting others in the thread know that if they continue to argue with you, they are likely arguing with air. Best to do it with a "I've made my arguments and I'm done" rather than a "you're a poopyhead and I don't wanna argue with you anymore." Pro tip: For the most part, nearly everything you'd like to say to one another can be framed in a way that is not a personal attack. Hey, it can even still be vicious, sarcastic, snarling, dripping with contempt, and make them look like a total idiot, as long as it is aimed at the argument and not the person! So don't despair, kids! Fun can still be had! Take a deep breath, reread your post, and reword it in a way that attacks the ARGUMENT. Anyway, I'm done now, unless someone else wants to bring up the issue of who personally attacked whom. Pro tip: Don't. My limited patience is limited.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Aug 12, 2017 19:24:22 GMT -5
I've read Zunger's essay (much-circulated now as a supposedly devastating takedown of Damore) in which he basically says Damore could not work with women and he deserves to be punched. Come on. He said a lot more than that. The thing I appreciated the most, as I'm not in tech and have no idea how it works, was his take on what is needed to move up/beyond being a run-of-the-mill coder. His rebuttal to the whole "women tend to be more people-oriented" (i.e., not suited for tech) was that actually, that's a crucial skill in tech, at upper management levels. That makes complete sense to me. I wish I'd have thought of it. (Of course, men can have empathy too, and the best leaders, male or female, always do, ime.) Not what I was suggesting at all. And Zunger was looking at it from a management level. You've got a guy who obviously harbors some opinions about women in general. If your choice is between Damore and a bunch of other candidates who aren't compelled to distribute internal memos containing their opinions about how Google is doing diversity wrong, opinions which include inapplicable (as everyone here now apparently agrees) generalizations about women in tech, who are you going to be likely to pick as a team player? I didn't pick up on any hurt feelings at all, quite frankly. MMV I suppose. I thought she made some great points, especially the last bit I quoted.
|
|