Participants to Uni speaker leave building, causing damage, after (obvious?) statements

[Redneckerz]

NOTE: I deliberately went out of my way to find the full video because the video that was on the newssite i frequent (Which is pretty right, i would say. I don't share their views, i simply visit that (Dutch) website to have more insight in opinions that differ from my own) felt pretty out of context and the title of the video (SJW triggered by ''men are taller than women'' - gets swiftly removed by taller, stronger man'') screams plain alt-right retoric - And the whole ''aftermath'' bit of the second video isn't actually in the source file. I did find the part where the second video is referring to - It starts around the 19.45 mark till 21.00. This is the part i am speaking of for the most part. Ofcourse, if you want to discuss other parts, feel free to do so. My focus is on this bit in particular.

Also note that this is a talk with James Damore, which has been in the news this year for sueing Google for discrimination for white people, and him losing his job at Google over a memo on diversity.

Please try to keep this civil. This is without a doubt a topic that can easily go south, hence why i went out of my way to include the source material, the moment where it happens, and putting in a disclaimer in the front where i refrain myself from sharing my personal opinion on the latter part of the edited video, simply because i cannot verify its legitmacy. If a staff member feels that despite all this, this thread is out of line, i'd appreciate the thread to be locked and that a PM is sent detailing why it was not okay. I usually refrain from posting threads on sensitive topics like these, but this video felt too out of my comfort zone to not discuss this.

To me the second video appears quite out of context and also deliberately edited to shun the socalled ''SJW'' people, but outside of that, what holds true from the second video? What the people who walk away are saying and doing and thus, acting over what seems to be are rather obvious statements - Is this justified? I won't go label these people as SJW's, but i do feel that these people causing a scene are not doing it for geniune intentions. I think its fine to disagree with the statements made, but i have issues with bringing the attention to yourself with your ''byeee'' and then damaging the sound system and shutting the microphone off.

Do note that i am not talking about the statements made in the ''aftermath'' part. I can't verify how in context this is, nor can i verify if this is edited or not to paint ''SJW'' in a badder light. As such i can't comment on that, although i do have to say that bringing up the Nazi argument generally is not a great argument to make. Outside of this, i refrain from commenting on it, purely because i don't know how legitimate it is. Given how the second video is quite edited as-is, i thus can't have enough grounds to comment on the ''aftermath'' part of the video.

So my focus is on the bit that is in the video. Are these people justified in causing such a scene? Is it okay to bring such attention to yourself? Is the lady making an obvious argument, or do you disagree with it? My personal opinion aside, i'd like to hear what ERA thinks.

​

 

[LinkStrikesBack]

I don't really think they are justified in taking offense to those statements specifically, no.

It is objectively true that Men are on average taller than women, and there typically are differences in where muscle mass is located, as is body fat. The person who said something on the lines of "you can't state things like that in a civilized society" is making an absurd suggestion.

They certainly weren't justified in breaking university equipment or trying to force that to be the end of the conversation (by damaging the sound system). The guy immediately afterwards is right in saying if they damage property of the university again (after a warning), that they should be expelled. Obviously just leaving the room wouldn't be grounds for that though... if you did it like an adult, which means quietly leaving.

Now I've not watched the first twenty minutes of the video so maybe they were in fact on a topic much more controversial than that segment makes it look, perhaps they were actually trying to argue something stupid like "and so this is it really hard to think women can't do maths?", or "women can't code", in which case the walkout would definitely be justified, but given the small number doing it and the cheers from the crowd afterwards, I seriously hope that the context was nothing like that (though if this James damoor is who I think he is, that asshole who circulated that internal document at google a while back, it may well have been).

 

[BowieZ]

The whole thing (scene and video) seems so fake/staged to me. A blue haired girl? Some guy calling them fascist Nazis? Such charicatures! Also, the supposed "unedited" video IS edited, throughout the walkout. It appears to splice in the most outrageous comments. Furthermore, afterwards, the emcee guy seems to have a very rehearsed response.

Anyway, presuming they're NOT "crisis actors" ;) a few people being "civilly disobedient" is (a) anecdotal, and (b) of an extremely vocal minority.

So I'm not sure what the purpose of this is.

Also, this whole "gender realism" thing is so inane. Yes, very generally men have different characteristics to women. But that has nothing to do with private companies implementing policies to encourage equal opportunity for women (or any other diminished group) in the workplace, given the incredible barriers they've been having to work around for decades.

 

[Redneckerz]

I don't really think they are justified in taking offense to those statements specifically, no.

It is objectively true that Men are on average taller than women, and there typically are differences in where muscle mass is located, as is body fat. The person who said something on the lines of "you can't state things like that in a civilized society" is making an absurd suggestion.

Click to shrink...

That's my take on it aswell. I refuse to believe that such a stark response is ''normal''. Ofcourse you can make statements like that as it is the epitome of being civil.
I mean, how you are going to react then given only women are able to have kids? Should men be equally upset at that? Should they say, when this is stated (Again a rather obvious observation to make) with ''You can't state things like that in a civilized society!''

This is my problem with the whole ''SJW'' or whatever goes for it these days. The arguments given get such an overreactionary response, i am not sure if such is done for attention or deflect criticism away. Hell, i don't think that a statement like ''You can't state things like that in a civilized society!'' holds water whatsoever. I simply can't go in peace with the instant kneejerk that occurs with people pretaining to be of this group. I don't want to think that everyone in that group is going to act the same way, as that would be mass-labelling SJW as a negative movement. I like to think there is a positive message to be found in it, but its reactions of the absurd like these that only serve to enhance the negative stigma the group already has.

They certainly weren't justified in breaking university equipment or trying to force that to be the end of the conversation (by damaging the sound system). The guy immediately afterwards is right in saying if they damage property of the university again (after a warning), that they should be expelled. Obviously just leaving the room wouldn't be grounds for that though... if you did it like an adult, which means quietly leaving.

Click to shrink...

I agree. but as BowieZ is saying, apparently even the original video has some kind of edit. I do think that damaging property equipment for the sake of disagreeing with a speaker is childish, and again, does not help the negative stigma. People can disagree all they want, as long as they can back it up with reasonable commentary, or leave the premises in a mature way. This was neither of it.

The whole thing (scene and video) seems so fake/staged to me. A blue haired girl? Some guy calling them fascist Nazis? Such charicatures! Also, the supposed "unedited" video IS edited, throughout the walkout. It appears to splice in the most outrageous comments. Furthermore, afterwards, the emcee guy seems to have a very rehearsed response.

Anyway, presuming they're NOT "crisis actors" ;) a few people being "civilly disobedient" is (a) anecdotal, and (b) of an extremely vocal minority.

So I'm not sure what the purpose of this is.

Click to shrink...

I am not sure if the ones leaving and the ones in the short clip are ''crisis actors''. I can't comment on the short clip as i don't know what was asked which made them to cause these statements (Which look damning, given its done out of any context whatsoever). AFAIK, what the lady was arguing in the clip leading up to that moment didn't seem that strange either, more as just stating the obvious.

If anything, i think its rather sad that the speaker had to state the obvious in the first place, given that you have people disagreeing against that very stance.

 

[BowieZ]

If anything, i think its rather sad that the speaker had to state the obvious in the first place, given that you have people disagreeing against that very stance.

Click to shrink...

It's not sad that she's stating the obvious.

It's IRRELEVANT. That is why people are protesting this shit.

The idea of men generally being physically different to women is almost entirely irrelevant to every facet of modern life.

These people going on about it all the time have a clear agenda, and THAT'S THE REASON people are protesting it.

 

[Deleted member 7082]

Not calling people "SJWs" in the first place, regardless of whether you think they are wrong about an issue, would not only be the mature, intellectual, and tactful thing to do, but would solve a lot of the conflicts you seem to be dealing with (when is it appropriate to call someone an SJW, is it a negative term or not, etc.).

The use of the term SJW is, at worst, a derisive jab at the concept of tolerance and social justice (what a horrible thing!) or, at best, a mental caricature based upon confirmation bias from stories like the ones Bill Maher described recently (sensationalist non-stories about three crazy people on Twitter no has ever heard of). I mean look at this story now, a handful of people in an edited video and we are framing this as a discussion on how "people" are, like people in this video set the trend for anybody.

 

[Redneckerz]

It's not sad that she's stating the obvious.

It's IRRELEVANT. That is why people are protesting this shit.

Click to shrink...

Do you actually think the people who left the scene did so because her stating it is ''irrelevant''? They rather seem offended of the fact that she highlights differences, which just happen to be factual by statistics.

The idea of men generally being physically different to women is almost entirely irrelevant to every facet of modern life.

Click to shrink...

Sure, but fact is that there are differences. That's why she stated it.

These people going on about it all the time have a clear agenda, and THAT'S THE REASON people are protesting it.

Click to shrink...

That seems a rather bold assumption to make.

Not calling people "SJWs" in the first place, regardless of whether you think they are wrong about an issue, would not only be the mature, intellectual, and tactful thing to do, but would solve a lot of the conflicts you seem to be dealing with (when is it appropriate to call someone an SJW, is it a negative term or not, etc.).

Click to shrink...

Agreed, its why i denoted the group of protesters not as SJW. Unironically, i have a feeling that if i did do that, and intentionally at that, this thread would have seen multiple pages. Which sadly, would be beyond the point of this thread :/

In a more broad view, i do notice, and perhaps it is fueled by media constantly highlighting ''examples'' of it, is that offensism is on a rise. With offensism i mean all those little things that if you think about it, are relatively harmless, but bystanders decide to get offended by it anyways. I feel a lot of if is the result of emotional kneejerk rather than assessing the situation at hand. And i guess it plays a part in this video too. And because media spends so much time detailing that their response is that of a emotional kneejerk, the whole discussion gets snow covered.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I think it's probably worth making a scene and disrupting the event if only because James Damore is speaking at it because that guy sucks.

 

[Alimnassor]

To be fair this has nothing to do with the topic. Yes, men and women are different but, its irrelevant. Tbh i think the kids were just. People are sick of being treated different due to their gander. A civilized society doesn't need to bring up biological differences.

 

[cervanky]

Is it possible they were upset because they hold the viewpoint that some men can get pregnant, some women have biologically male bodies that may skew taller on average, etc? So perhaps they take issue with the conception of male and female used by the speaker.

 

[Sinfamy]

That's my school, and one of my professors.
I consider myself a leftie, and liberal, but throwing around accusations of fascism at people you don't like makes me cringe so bad.
The school went out of its way to create two opposing events, one on the same day at the same time, all faculty and women's studies were also invited and refused taking some moral high ground.
I guarantee you most people never even read what Demore wrote in its entirety.

 

[Deleted member 39214]

For whats its worth i dont see anything wrong in what the professor was saying, i do however think the actions of those children is just pure attention seeking.

 

[Dehnus]

My ears perked up, and I did not know, as at first it was only ever so lightly, but reverberated with each next post with upwards volume ever more slightly.

What was it ask myself over and over. Could it be my teapot alerting?

No, with timely manner passing on, recognized this siren song. For what the OP seems to be very much be squirting, seems to be a whistle that makes canines' ears hurting.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

They're upset because stating obvious biological differences is only used as an excuse to justify cultural forces that prevent women from being encouraged or feeling welcome in fields such as CS. Why else would it be discussed? What makes those differences relevant to the conversation of employment, education, and careers?

Think a little more critically. What if instead they were discussing "innate biological differences" between black and white people during a conversation about racial diversity in the workplace? Would it then be appropriate for the black people in the audience to protest? How is this different?

 

[Sinfamy]

They're upset because stating obvious biological differences is only used as an excuse to justify cultural forces that prevent women from being encouraged or feeling welcome in career fields such as CS. Why else would it be discussed? What makes those differences relevant to the conversation of employment, education, and careers?

Click to shrink...

Because Demore when asked for feedback on Google's diversity push mentioned how biology might be a reason why women aren't as common in that field, but dominate others, instead of it being systemic oppression. Why when you look at Scandinavian countries, women in stem are even lower.
I think it's a mix of both biology and economics.
There are clear hurdles, and I encourage earlier school education and encouragement, but you can't pretend there's a case of oppression and discrimination in Google's hiring practice against women.
In my CS classes, there were less then 10% women, who were primarily from India or China.

There's a lot of studies on this stuff. I don't see why it's controversial.

Think a little more critically. What if instead they were discussing "innate biological differences" between black and white people during a conversation about racial diversity in the workplace? Would it then be appropriate for the black people in the audience to protest? How is this different?

Click to shrink...

That's a disingenuous question.
There are no significant biological differences between races, there are clear differences in gender. Evolutionary differences that may lead one to pursue various careers.
Though I think economics play an important role too, it's not so simple.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

Because Demore when asked for feedback on Google's diversity push mentioned how biology might be a reason why women aren't as common in that field, but dominate others, instead of it being systemic oppression. Why when look at Scandinavian countries, women on stem are even lower.
I think it's a mix of both biology and economics.
There are clear hurdles, and I encourage earlier school education and encouragement, but you can't pretend there's a case of oppression and discrimination in Google's hiring practice against women.
In my CS classes, there were less then 10% women, who were primarily from India or China.

There's a lot of studies on this stuff. I don't see why it's controversial.

Click to shrink...

You select only a case that supports your argument and ignore the larger picture. Is it biology, then, that men are the minority of STEM graduates in the middle east?

Or is it societal pressures, expectations, and economics in both extreme cases?

A study published in February found that the social and political gender equality typical of Scandinavian countries may be inversely related to women's representation in STEM fields. This could be in part due to the fact that countries with greater parity between sexes tend to be wealthier, providing better government support to citizens and allowing women to accept less secure jobs.

Click to shrink...

hmmm.........

 

[Deleted member 888]

Whatever your cause, students need to stop wrecking shit and acting like totally unstable individuals when trying to get their points across. In the social media/camera generation we live in sometimes I wonder how some of these students do not see themselves in a recording and think "damn, that's embarrassing".

Then again, the social media generation has bred an insatiable desire for ego-stroking and attention, so I think a lot of people feed off seeing themselves go viral, even if it's by being recorded being outrageous/destroying property/setting off fire alarms/etc. Plus, I think half the time the Universities end up scared of some of the students because if they say your behaviour is unacceptable, immediately the accusations of you're discriminating against me come out.

Challenge ideas you are not in agreement with, with ideas you think are better, and while you can do it with passion and ferocity, don't go as far as to make yourself a laughing stock. You just cause people to roll their eyes at you and not listen to you as you come across as the aggressor or annoying side.

 

[Sinfamy]

You select only a case that supports your argument and ignore the larger picture. Is it biology, then, that men are the minority of STEM graduates in the middle east?

Or is it societal pressures, expectations, and economics in both extreme cases?



hmmm.........

Click to shrink...

I wrote that economics play a big role too.
But if you remove every obstacle a woman could have, social and economically and yet and less and less of them pursue these careers, maybe it's not a system problem of gender discrimination, but rather one on which they choose the careers they they find interesting.
Scientists and researchers are suppose to discuss and find out why, you can't just throw a tantrum when what you hear doesn't align with what you've heard before.

You shouldnt read what he wrote in its entirety because it becomes clear very early on that its nonsense not worth your time.

It's like getting mad at someone for saying 9/11 truthers shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't sit down and watch one of those three hour crazy YouTube videos that "prove" it was an inside job.

Click to shrink...

I get it, but I'm not really defending what he said as much as I'm annoyed by the huge uproar and reaction against it.
Throwing words like fascism, throwing tantrum, calling bomb threats, cutting the power, and a lot of other shit that happened on this campus because of this is completely over the top and unwarranted for what I say being an eye roll of a piece.

 

[Deleted member 176]

That's my school, and one of my professors.
I consider myself a leftie, and liberal, but throwing around accusations of fascism at people you don't like makes me cringe so bad.
The school went out of its way to create two opposing events, one on the same day at the same time, all faculty and women's studies were also invited and refused taking some moral high ground.
I guarantee you most people never even read what Demore wrote in its entirety.

Click to shrink...

You shouldnt read what he wrote in its entirety because it becomes clear very early on that its nonsense not worth your time.

It's like getting mad at someone for saying 9/11 truthers shouldn't be taken seriously because they didn't sit down and watch one of those three hour crazy YouTube videos that "prove" it was an inside job.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

I wrote that economics play a big role too.
But if you remove every obstacle a woman could have, social and economically and yet and less and less of them pursue these careers, maybe it's not a system problem of gender discrimination, but rather one on which they choose the careers they they find interesting.
Scientists and researchers are suppose to discuss and find out why, you can't just throw a tantrum when what you hear doesn't align with what you've heard before.

Click to shrink...

People like Damore believe discrimination is justifiable on metrics like "qualification" which comes down to education and aptitude. Sex or race-based differences in aptitude have no supporting evidence. What women find interesting is a question of socialization, conditioning and opportunity more than it is a question of biology. If they were trained that programming was for girls - which it absolutely was only a few decades ago - these ratios would look very different.

 

[AstralTurfWarrior]

To be fair this has nothing to do with the topic. Yes, men and women are different but, its irrelevant. Tbh i think the kids were just. People are sick of being treated different due to their gander. A civilized society doesn't need to bring up biological differences.

Click to shrink...

It's irrelevant in a lot of contexts, but it's certainly not irrelevant in the society level in general. The biological differences do affect a lot of things in the society, such as gender roles and expectations and attitudes in general and also things like distribution of the sexes in certain fields.

That said, the biological differences probably aren't something that play any huge part in the reasons why there are so few women in computer science in Western countries.

 

[Sinfamy]

People like Damore believe discrimination is justifiable on metrics like "qualification" which comes down to education and aptitude. Sex or race-based differences in aptitude have no supporting evidence. What women find interesting is a question of socialization, conditioning and opportunity more than it is a question of biology. If they were trained that programming was for girls - which it absolutely was only a few decades ago - these ratios would look very different.

Click to shrink...

He never said there's a difference in aptitude, he made that clear, and "qualification" is not a discrimination.
If you want to run an experiment where you try socially condition women to find programming interesting be my guest.
It's just thay when you account for the variables of economics, opportunity, education, and everything else, women are still not dying to enter programming fields, at which point a biological reason might not be conclusive, but it might also not be wrong.
If the problem is at the early education level, fix it there. It might also be parents pushing kids onto various careers paths, not necessarily the problem of the school structure.
My girlfriend does web design and development, at no point was she ever discouraged to do what she's doing, besides her parents.
It's also worth investigating in contemporary settings, not from decades ago when when switch operators were still around.

 

[Deleted member 4482]

He never said there's a difference in aptitude, he made that clear, and "qualification" is not a discrimination.
If the problem is at the early education level, fix it there. It might also be parents pushing kids onto various careers paths, not necessarily the problem of the school structure.
My girlfriend does web design and development, at no point was she ever discouraged to do what she's doing, besides her parents.
It's also worth investigating in contemporary settings, not from decades ago when when switch operators were still around.

Click to shrink...

Your assessment of this issue is so frustratingly surface-level, and you're not going to listen to me.

 

[Driggonny]

He never said there's a difference in aptitude, he made that clear, and "qualification" is not a discrimination.
If the problem is at the early education level, fix it there. It might also be parents pushing kids onto various careers paths, not necessarily the problem of the school structure.
My girlfriend does web design and development, at no point was she ever discouraged to do what she's doing, besides her parents.
It's also worth investigating in contemporary settings, not from decades ago when when switch operators were still around.

Click to shrink...

So, what biological differences would lead women to not enter stem?

 

[Dude Abides]

Sometimes college students do dumb things.

The woman speaking is Bret Weinstein's wife, I believe. Nice how she's glommed onto his controversy for her own 15 minutes of internet fame. Can't knock the hustle.

 

[Sinfamy]

So, what biological differences would lead women to not enter stem?

Click to shrink...

Probably the same ones that make them lead in teaching (which is severely underpaid and underappreciated), the medical and care fields, counseling, and HR.

But clearly not whatever hogwash a hit piece like this might say.

http://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2...to-be-engineers-will-speak-at-psu-next-month/

 

[Driggonny]

Probably the same ones that make them lead in teaching (which is severely underpaid and underappreciated), the medical and care fields, counseling, and HR.

Click to shrink...

So... Motherly instinct, I guess? Lol

 

[Deleted member 176]

Probably the same ones that make them lead in teaching (which is severely underpaid and underappreciated), the medical and care fields, counseling, and HR.

But clearly not whatever hogwash a hit piece like this might say.

http://www.wweek.com/news/schools/2...to-be-engineers-will-speak-at-psu-next-month/

Click to shrink...

These aren't real biological differences. Damore isn't a biologist or anything close to it, he's just a bigot that made shit up and made it sound smart.

Or rather "made it sound smart".

 

[Sinfamy]

These aren't real biological differences. Damore isn't a biologist or anything close to it, he's just a bigot that made shit up and made it sound smart.

Or rather "made it sound smart".

Click to shrink...

Well, yea, kinda what you get when you ask a software engineer his opinions on diversity in the workplace. Google could just have easily rolled their eyes and ignored it, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Yes. It's also why people shouldn't give him the time of day, and why people shouldn't go to bat for his bigoted statements which aren't based in reality.

Although Google shouldn't have ignored it, because you should fire your employees when they send a mass-email to everyone in the company full of baseless hate speech.

Click to shrink...

Here's the memo, it's really try-hard, but not hate speech my goodness.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.html

 

[Deleted member 176]

Well, yea, kinda what you get when you ask a software engineer his opinions on diversity in the workplace. Google could just have easily ignored it and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Click to shrink...

Yes. It's also why people shouldn't give him the time of day, and why people shouldn't go to bat for his bigoted statements which aren't based in reality.

Although Google shouldn't have ignored it, because you should fire your employees when they send a mass-email to everyone in the company full of baseless hate speech.

 

[Deleted member 3093]

Hate speech does not have to be fire and brimstone to be so.

 

[Deleted member 176]

Here's the memo, it's really try-hard, but not hate speech my goodness.

Click to shrink...

As a general rule of thumb, if you want to be taken seriously and still work in one of the most competitive jobs in the world, it's generally best to not send out a weird unsolicited manifesto declaring yourself biologically superior to most of your coworkers if you don't have a biological background and have very little knowledge on the subject. Because when you do that, you come across as a person with a worrying personality disorder at best.

I'm also not aware of the distinction between "try hard" and "hate speech" when it comes to declaring that you're biologically superior to your coworkers with no supporting evidence.


Like if I sent out a twenty page memo to everyone in my building explaining that, as a Sagitarrius, I'm inherently better at my job than they are, wouldn't you at least be seriously concerned about how well I would be able to carry out my job responsibilities? James Damore is that guy, but with pervasive bigotry thrown in.

 

[plagiarize]

The manipulated / doctored content presented in this thread, and the absence of the OP, are not going to facilitate a meaningful discussion. We are closing it to further replies.