How is this elitist? Do most people understand the current financial system in any meaningful way?
Do most people understand how their computers work? How their air conditioner works? How about the pressure dynamics that make their toilets flush?
Saying everyone can't mine it is inaccurate, everyone can mine it even with a smartphone. Is it profitable? No, but neither is mining iron ore with a shovel. Those with the knowledge and capital to fully utilize any system will always have an edge over those who don't, in what reality is this not the case?
Because our financial system isn't portrayed as a technology that will bring the power to the people and free us from the shackles of elite organizations. Bitcoin is presented this way.
Bitcoin won't free people who won't lift a finger to learn it just like the US constitution won't protect people unwilling to defend it. I've yet to meet someone who is unable to understand the basic use of bitcoin (sending and receiving) and if we are trying to cater to the lowest common denominator we have already lost. It is worrying that we have resorted to scrapping a new technology just because lazy or incompetent people are unable to completely master it.
>There is no research (to the best of my knowledge) claiming that there are biological differences between the same sex of different races.
Actually there are numerous observed differences in physical ability that are attributed to race, such as Tibetans having better adaptability to high altitudes than most other groups[1]. Physical differences are relatively uncontroversial, the problem arrives when we start to discuss mental differences.
I see not reason why a difference in environment would not cause various mental adaptations to form along the course of natural selection of geographically separate groups of people. This is an inconvenient idea and has been vehemently suppressed in the scientific community whenever it is brought up [2]. Instead of pretending such differences cannot exist we should instead focus on overcoming these differences so that everyone can participate according to their own unique ability.
How about female coal miners? Female construction workers?
This isn't about fairness it is all about browbeating people from a perceived moral high ground so that wages can be lowered for all (more supply of programmers = lower cost). The "useful fools" here likely have the best intentions but are being used by people without good intent.
Actually, diversity measures make things worse by promoting below-average candidates unfairly based on their superficial attributes (skin color, sex etc). This actually achieves the opposite of what is intended as it reduces fitness selection of whatever genes make someone good at/interested in STEM topics. By going against meritocracy you are harming the vulnerable groups by giving them a crutch to rely on.
In the case of Google, I don't think the bar is being lowered for any candidate, since there are so many candidates to select from. If anything, it's more likely that qualified non-diverse candidate are rejected for random reasons at a higher rate than qualified diverse candidates, because interviewers and hiring committee aren't on the look out for biases.
I don't think anyone is promoting below-average hires as part of diversity programs. If that was the case, they could just hire only women until the desired gender balance is met.
I get the feeling your position is exactly what Google referred to as toxic. Imagine a woman hired in a diversity program hears your position. Do you think she will feel welcomed and understood?
Is that not what a diversity program amounts to? If the candidate was superior on merit alone then market forces would reward those companies that ignored race and gender in their hiring decisions and punish the racist/sexist ones that were passing up perfectly good candidates. If all existing companies are racist/sexist then the potential entrepreneur that starts a competitor and scoops up all the "ignored talent" would make a killing.
Perhaps instead of whining about gender ratios we should be the change we want to see while making a ton of money at the same time?
I sincerely don't think diversity programs amount to that. And if you know any that do, call them out because they are not diversity programs, they are "discrimination" programs in essence.
As a side note, I think you expect too much from talent in this specific case. There have been more than one companies that have hired excellent talent only to succumb to the market forces.
I'm curious as to why you don't think diversity programs are not exactly that: discrimination programs. Enforcing quotas assumes (usually incorrectly) that there is an equal supply of talent within the underrepresented minority group and that it is simply bias on the part of the hiring managers that prevents equal numbers of blacks/women/hispanics/whatever from being hired. Putting pressure on companies for not having more minority representation is being discriminatory against (usually) white males, as there are limited spots available at a given company.
If you start with the potentially incorrect assumption that your hiring practices are biased in favor of one group over another then doesn't it make more sense to address this bias directly rather than enforcing quotas? Having your hiring process audited and getting rid of any bad weeds seems like a good start. I've seen firsthand manager who have said outright "we can't hire him, we need to hire a woman this time" after interviewing what seemed to be a good candidate.
Do you think these people don't have extensive private security? The elite could easily take on a whole city of rioters with the resources at their disposal. When the gloves come off and it starts being about survival it won't be bodyguards pushing people out of the way, it will be mercenaries with helicopters and full-auto weapons. The middle class that can't afford such protection will of course be the losers, as usual, and will be scapegoated after all the Richie Rich types have escaped to their private islands/bunkers.
>Almost 100% of midwives in Ontario are female
No, it is only a problem for the "good jobs" that are dominated by men. No one will fight for gender ratios in the coal mining business, despite how useful "a diversity of life experience and opinion" might be within this industry.
This entire thing is a political tool being disguised as a moral crusade and it is playing off our collective desire to do the right thing. Absolutely disgusting.
>not take 4% back on gas and 3% on restaurants
yes? This is the same argument for using stuff like gmail. What, are you really gonna pay 20 bucks a year for email? I'm sure everyone's price to sell away their privacy is different but I'm a little off-put by how cheaply people are selling themselves these days. I hope it never becomes a problem (e.g. Stasi) but if it does I won't be crying for those people whose lives will be ruined.
So then based on the admittance data Asians have it easiest? Must be due to discrimination in their favor, not because they are pressured to get good grades and do well. Surely you see the hypocrisy of such a position?
On the contrary, growing up white and middle class stacks the odds in your favour in the same way. Many well-off Asian families possibly even more so for the reasons you point out (I spend a lot of time in Asia and know it well). If you are a white middle class male you have better options in education and you are brought up for success, less likely to get arrested and so on - so yes of course you will be more likely to get into a good college and be able to cover costs, and you will be with more people who look and talk like you and that network will be important in getting jobs down the line (or partners and investors for your business). And no, it's still not easy.
But merit is just a table stake and never goes far on its own. Nobody is supposing that companies are occupied by a bunch of white cabbages (although the fact that googleboy got any support really does make me wonder as he was so intellectually vacuous). And it's ingrained into our culture that white men take the top jobs right through business, culture and arts, science, and politics - so the danger is we see it as 'how things are' and assume it's evolved for the best.
But it's completely optional and man-made, and ultimately a political choice, 1. not to have a level playing field when it comes to equality of opportunity and 2. to stack it in that direction. The reality is that tech companies led by women do better and the biggest indicator of ending up poor is having the misfortune to be born poor, so society at large isn't going to fall in by redressing the balance.
And no, fixing a racist and sexist system isn't racism or sexism. The issue many people have here is that they don't recognise it as institutionally racist and sexist in the first place. That's because they are the beneficiaries of the system and cannot see it (I know how hard it is to see past that as I'm one too, and this is why I mention the Blub paradox). You are absolutely right to look at the the figures and point out the number of Asians. We need to check the figures because we can't be objective by just going off our feels (we are a great bunch of guys and love and respect women and don't have a racist bone in our bodies etc). It's a systemic issue, very rarely a personal one (although of course it's personal to all those who are disadvantaged by it).
>The reality is that tech companies led by women do better
Wow, what a sexist thing to say. Ignoring Marissa Mayer for the moment, are you claiming that women are inherently better at something than men? Isn't that a little like claiming that men are better than women at technical roles? That white people are better than black people at building civilization? Seriously, that is a nazi-esque belief you have there. I suggest you reconsider your stance before making claims about one group being better in any way than another.
Lol at you fumbling for anecdota about MM when you hear a fact you don't like. Yes, I'm pointing out that women-owned tech companies financially outperform male-owned tech companies. Data, nothing to do with beliefs. (Men do have terrible academic drop out records by comparison with women and need affirmative remediation themselves in that area, all things being equal.)
If the shoe was on the other foot would we be so quick to write it off? If Google was run by right-wingers and fired LGBT activists would we say "they can do whatever they want since it is their company"? Why do we not allow discrimination on the basis of religion (a belief) but allow it based on political opinion (a belief)?
Freedom of speech (which Germany does not have) is a core tenet of democracy. If the government can police what we say then it follows that they can prevent those from being elected that they do not agree with. For example: what if we made liberal values into hatespeech, how likely do you think it would be for the democrats to win the next election? Any country without true freedom of speech is autocracy in disguise.
What is it that makes Germany not have freedom of speech?
Most liberal democracies have freedom of speech even though they have laws against libel/slander/hate speech and so on.
Next you go on to say that countries without freedom of speech are autocracies in disguise - implying Germany is an autocracy... not sure what to make of that. Are you implying that e.g either you live in a democracy and you can hate-speak, or you don't live in a democracy?
From the last paragraph I get the feeling you live in re US and take great pride in it being a true democracy because of its lack of hate speech laws (libel/slander laws exist). I wouldn't worry so much about politicians being able to limit hate speech in a place where elected officials draw the election district lines, effectively choosing their voters, where entire groups of citizens (such as prison inmates) can't vote at all, and where the executive branch of government doesn't have popular support even on Election Day.
I'm no fan of hate speech laws myself, but I consider it quite useless to define democracy as not being able to coexist with them.
Someone being not jailed to me sounds like the laws actually did protect his speech as satire?
That fact aside, it's certainly problematic to have laws against insulting a foreign leader (Erdogan in this case). It must be noted of course that this particular type of insult (e.g calling someone a child molester) is probably enough for accusations of libel/slander in other countries as well, whether or not they have that odd "foreign leader" paragraph Germany has.
Holocaust denier? I think its a bit of a thoughtcrime, but I do have some understanding where they are coming from - or, at least why it's now hard to make a popular argument that this law should be abandoned.
I think adults should be able to say/hear what they want.
Germany has "volksverhetzung" which amounts to hatespeech laws. To me it seems like an intentionally broad law banning "incitement of hatred", a noble goal for sure, but still not free speech. They also have laws against holocaust denial (again, noble intent) but that is not free speech. They also have anti-nazi laws ("the distribution or public use of symbols of unconstitutional groups") which again is not free speech. Somehow the US allows all of these forms of speech but has maintained its position as a pretty decent place to live, even for minority immigrants. Free speech is a binary despite what the detractors will try to claim. If someone wants to run a nazi political platform it is up to the public to make the judgement call to not vote for them.
Do most people understand how their computers work? How their air conditioner works? How about the pressure dynamics that make their toilets flush?
Saying everyone can't mine it is inaccurate, everyone can mine it even with a smartphone. Is it profitable? No, but neither is mining iron ore with a shovel. Those with the knowledge and capital to fully utilize any system will always have an edge over those who don't, in what reality is this not the case?