What did this writer mean by this?

What did this writer mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=m0n0Et8aI3s
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity
quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Nothing is really going to change, the establishment will keep being powerful and controlling the masses as usual.

What's going to happen? Women still dominate HR departments, and the pseudoscientific notion of gender being socially constructed is still the dominant view among academics. I don't see those two things changing any time soon.

It would be really good if things changed, but Taleb should be very aware of the cretins that flock to him. He should remain independent and not allign himself with the likes of Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson and so on. He is increasingly retweeting this filth. Maybe they are the only ones who dare to speak out, but they are antithetical to Taleb's overall philosophy.

Or maybe Taleb doesn't think so and I'm wrong. I do think he is absolutely right to speak out on certain issues, and he should, like he always did. But for me he is losing some of his credibility by alligning himself with countercultural journos who are just as full of bullshit as your typical journo.

>to crumble
>i mean, to crumble
...boy

foghorn.. easy on the boys

He's pretty deluded if he thinks a short article complaining about political correctness following a twitter argument is going to change literally anything

We'll see.

It is the act of defiance itself, not necessarily its nature, that inspires hope.

People have been complaining about political correctness since like the 80's. one article from a not terribly well known scholar won't change anything.

WE
WILL
SEE

You can get your hopes up for nothing, I don't really care but it seems blatantly obvious that this is just a drop in the ocean

He's kinda painted himself into a corner. The ability to tweet inflammatory things is a sign of his antifragility. So he now tied to everything he says on twitter lest back-pedalling is accused of fragility

we'll see

Talebs writing style is somehow becoming even more confusing instead of less. I really wish he'd put some more circumspection into his writing process. I think he'd have a lot more readers, or at the very least I wouldn't have to preface my recommendations of his books with a warning.

t. editor
fragalista too

Tho he has a decent track record of predicting the future (failure rate of

Perhaps, but people have been complaining about PC shit and predicting its end for years, and that makes me inherently skeptical towards someone who's doing the same. The whole idea that it's an entirely imposed idea and that just a single well timed rebellion will throw it off seems silly to me.

Nigga shut your bitchass mouth or man up and do something about it

...

I don't think he is talking about his article changing things, more like the response to said article is indicative of a change occurring

What article?

What response?

Was at my job today when something started to crumble all around me. Had no idea what was going on until I read this tweet. Still don't.

t. owner of a hidden option at someone else's expense

>starting to crumble.
>I mean, to crumble.
???

What is this about?

foghorn... easy on the alt right

Given Taleb's own ideas, I think he is implying that large numbers of people are no longer buying in to the studies and theories that academia has been putting out, and which businesses have been implementing, and that includes large numbers of people who are part of those institutions (students and employees). And the very hostile reaction to people who question whether these ideas and policies are solidly grounded, or even desirable outside of the spaces that they originated in, suggests that the general "buy-in" for these ideas is very fragile right now. When you have to start adopting a "we will fire people who question company policy and philosophy" policy, there's definite trouble brewing within the ranks, not to mention morale issues.

Capitalism itself is racist.

It will fall in the next 30 years as a natural effect of the climate change.

link to his article?

I'm too young to say this with certainty but I don't really see any sea change in general acceptance of the current narrative. I can't really think of anything that would indicate a narrative shift that's occurred recently

Hard to see change when you get your career destroyed if you publicly speak out against it.

the sentences of this actual article were so poorly structured, and the article itself was nearly nonsense. I can't believe it was allowed to be published on their site.

That's sorta what I've been saying

>pseudoscientific notion of gender being socially constructed

"Gender" literally means manifestation of sex in cultural expression. If a man existed alone in the world, he would not think of himself as male despite being sexually male. The ego recognizes gender identity from differentiation. It literally could not exist if not socially.

Holy shit this board is trash in the summer.

>Stefan Molyneux, Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson
holy shit

saw this earlier, its cringecore

Gender is equivalent to sex and both are assigned by God. Gender theory is bunk.

>If you run this thought experiment which has no relevance to reality then it shows that men can cut their dicks off and become women

Amazing

Nice observation.

>Gender is equivalent to sex

Kek. What about intersex people, wiseguy? Don't weasel out by saying that they are a trivial abnormality. What set of gender expressions did God assign them to?

>Gender theory

Kekk. Using gender to mean what the word denotes is not a "theory." Care to provide me with another word that refers to cultural expression of sex?

>to crumble
>i mean, to crumble
Unironically what did he mean by this?
This is like when he said stochastaphob tawkers.

>If you run this thought experiment which has no relevance to reality

You don't "run" a thought experiment. What do you disagree with specifically. Are you literally arguing against thought experiments in general? Identity is necessarily intersubjective and therefore sexual self-perception is social. Wtf do you not understand?

>men can cut their dicks off and become women

I literally mentioned nothing about transsexuals in my post. I simply maintained that "gender" is a useful term to distinguish biological sex and cultural sexual expression and identity. Your brain is wired to fire off about infantile, protozoan memes rather than to learn or discuss things honestly.

it's a pretty conventional way to just say something emphatically

Are you fucking serious? Yes, men wouldn't perceive themselves as male if they were hats. Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species. Existing in the world is predicated on existing alongside women; you can't separate those social conditions from our biology.

>"Gender" literally means manifestation of sex in cultural expression
First I've heard of it. I don't trust anyone who tries to shove a definition down my throat without my consent, though.

What is "existing alongside women"?

>you can't separate those social conditions from our biology.

You very easily can. I just did a couple of minutes ago.

>Existing in the world is predicated on existing alongside women.

Possibly. I find that a little dubious. However, you can consider the difference between sex and gender in the way that they have been given a demarcation by academia, yes? The fact that you may think they are inextricable is not relevant.

It's a distinction that doesn't matter when it comes to my point, which is that "femaleness," while hard to define, isn't something constructed socially in relation to men, it's something that has a biological basis and served an evolutionary function. Culture doesn't erase the inherent psychology we developed over the course of the last couple hundred thousand years.

And that's okay

The idea that sex and gender are easily separable is a ridiculous idea. Masculinity and femininity are tied to the body. Feminists before Butler understood and gloried in that fact.

What the fuck is it with this attempt to ignore bodies?

Hopefully it's enough to make the right realize that big business isn't their friend.

If you apply that standard to everything, all forms of differentiation are societal constructs. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I will say that, at that point, it's not a useful way to define the term if we want to differentiate between it and biological constructs.

It's conducive to the advancement of post-industrial capitalism. That's precisely it's the endorsed ideology of out times.

>inherent psychology

Wow very smart of you. Evolutionary biology is so exact and not at all the actual pseudoscience

>every species behavior is altered by their evolutionary environment except humans

It's going to be some SHIT when enough Christians (and Buddhists and Hindus I guess) become anti-capitalist. Muslims are already there, what if other religions start joining in? There's already an anti-capitalist pope.

>There's already an anti-capitalist pope.
And it isn't a coincidence that he's reaffirmed the church's opposition to gender theory. Who would have thought the the fucking pope would have to save us from developments in capitalism enabled by a Berkeley professor?

>gender is behavior

now you're following, senpai

When capitalism belches and rolls over and dies the Church is going to be waiting for the survivors with food and blankets and the Rosary.

recent swarm of frogs

youtube.com/watch?v=m0n0Et8aI3s

only to start anew with instant slaves

>another word that refers to cultural expression of sex
Masculinity, feminity. The dirty trick is to use one word instead of these two, to mix them up and suppress them.

No such theory, obvious reality and what the word has meant for hundreds of years in various languages.

>sex
Purely biological, also means those that have themselves altered diverge into something not quite male or female. Though genetically they're male/female.

>gender
Characteristics and role assigned to each sex in a given culture. Derives from sex but is cultural and social, not biological.

These distinctions and more are necessary to accurately speak of the topic, what is so hard to understand?

>These distinctions and more are necessary to accurately speak of the topic, what is so hard to understand?
Because what is referred to as gender flows directly from sex sex and does not exist outside of it. Giving it special attention because it exists socially rather than physically is a diversion that exists for no reason other than to push agendas. This discourse is a sham, and it's so malicious that its advocates should be locked away.

t. Veeky Forums autodidact

Not even. I'm just a radical anti-intellectual.

You can't just state a paradox and then strut around like an inflated clock when an answer doesn't suit you

Your error is the denial that gender has any biological basis. Biological and social influence are not mutually exclusive.

Not the same guy.
You post a paradox then strut around like a cock as if you posted some sort of ground breaking remark?
Please say your just baiting.

You can't undo centuries of thought culminating into precisely what you deny so hard: relations among things such as sex and gender are complex and cannot be linearly composed by parts. You're claiming the culture exists without the people and that people can exist without creating a culture. An exquisite lie, which would mean we could separately comprehend both and them simply compose our understanding, but a lie will remain a lie.

Also, if cheese derives from milk can it ever not be a dairy product? Even your phrasing seems to fail in unbinding gender (and, more generally, the whole of culture) from the people, hence also from their biological features (as well as social ones, of course).

There is a 99.7% correlation between sex and gender. Unless you come out of gender studies, where the brainwashed will argue that their indoctrination is legitimate.

How did you arrive at that number?

How detached from reality does one have to be in order to believe that "gender is a social construct". You are either a man or a woman. How and why did we get to the point where this simple truth of life is denied? The world has gone mad.

Oh god, cringe.

The point is that the man would still act and think and feel in more in what we think typically masculine ways (assuming he's an average man or somewhere in the range of averageness). The same way a female existing alone, if she's an average female with average female hormones, would act and think and feel in more typically feminine ways.

Parts of gender are indeed socially constructed (for instance, the idea that blue and less bright colors are colors for men/boys, and colors that are overly bright or gaudy or neon, and the colors purple and pink, are for girls), but there are also definite biological differences and tendencies in the way men will typically think, act, and feel, and the way women will think, act, and feel. It's easy enough to admit, say, that pink being a girly color is something socially engrained into us and a part of the social aspect of gender; but when you say that psychological gender differentiation is entirely social and biological, you begin to walk off into loony-land.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiresias
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performativity

'poliical correctness' is white dude for 'empathy and basic human decency'

Tiresias is a myth like many expressing the idea of androgyny/union of opposing principles.

Intersex is a very rare biological phenomenon.

Performativity is a profound concept and applies to more than just gender, as I see it. You can argue there are parts of gender roles that aren't innate to people but that people simply perform in order to create an imaginary identity society has constructed for them relating to their gender roles (for instance, Americans are so used to calling pink a girly color that, even though it's not inherently girly, it's become part of the act; a man can't wear pink without on some level being aware that "I'm breaking societal norms by wearing pink!" and a girl without thinking "i'm fulfilling my role by wearing a girly color!"), but there are also psychological differences widespread throughout all known cultures due to biology, in which generally women are more passive and men more active.

t. nigger

im not a sjw and obviously i recognize what generally are the differences between men and women, in stature and in thought; but this "dude men and women lmao" droning from the_donald types is overly reductive and totally unproductive.

political correctness is a modern institutional invention, never before seen in history. and yet empathy and "basic human decency", whatever that may mean in all of its subjectivity, has been around for as long as man. it is entirely wrong to conflate the two. political correctness, and the defiance of it, is a tool utilizing what may be considered empathy. but empathy itself is not a tool. so it is different.

kekkles

>And the very hostile reaction to people who question whether these ideas and policies are solidly grounded, or even desirable outside of the spaces that they originated in, suggests that the general "buy-in" for these ideas is very fragile right now. When you have to start adopting a "we will fire people who question company policy and philosophy" policy, there's definite trouble brewing within the ranks, not to mention morale issues.

You and the writer in OP are completely misreading why he was fired. Google management isn't trying to tamp down their predominantly alt-right cis-male employee ranks through censorship and intimidation. They are responding to the reaction from their predominantly center and left-of-center employees against Damore's memo.

Not only generally is the reaction coming from other employees and not management, but more specifically Damore has been fired due to legal reasoning: management has more to fear from other employees bringing workplace discrimination suits against Google if they are in any way seen as endorsing Damore's opinion, then from Damore in a wrongful termination suit.

What is crumbling here other than Damore's career prospects?

The guy is (((their))) planted psy-op to discredit the opposition, one look at him should make that clear.

how does it discredit the opposition

his memo is pretty reasonable

>his memo is pretty reasonable
>implying

>has been around for as long as man
women, PoC and Queers would beg to disagree

you're a silly person

It is certainly reasonably written, in a way many reactions to it are not.

As for whether it is reasonable to imply your company should be sorting male employees into leading, core, lucrative roles and sorting females into supportive, peripheral, less lucrative roles in order to improve efficiency and cohesion...

>acknowledging that gender = sex and that you are either a man or a woman makes you a "the_donald type"
Neck yourself.

can someone explain this meme to me please

what else would you have google do? nobody was going to work with the guy after he wrote a memo full of pseudoscience justifications for his female coworkers' alleged inferiority. muh freeze peach doesn't mean freedom from consequences, you goobergater

I didn't read that part. From what I saw he was basically explaining the reason for why women are a minority in tech. There are biological differences between men and women, some of which are mental and in where their interests lay.

The other irony is that he was alerting to the increased ideological intolerance, where people are fired for their beliefs.

Not fire him. Easy question.

And the science is well founded. There are biological differences between the sexes.

>pseudo science
>actual scientist say it was accurate

quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

But then what do you expect when internet discourse is dominated by "critiquers" and humanitards who think huge words and snark are the defining characteristics of intelligence. They come across a Harvard Biology PhD and they can't understand a thing.

It's ok, go back to jerking off over "transcendental" continental philosophy

apple crumble mah man
there's plenny to go around nasism's cookin up a FEAST

'actual scientists' a hundred years ago would have told you jews are naturally scheming and unreliable due to phrenology. we can't give no quarter to fascism or fascists. 'diversity of opinion'' is a bullshit cynical fascist argument made by people who only care about freedom of opinion when it's their opinion

>I didn't read that part. From what I saw he was basically explaining the reason for why women are a minority in tech.

No, he was explaining the reason why women would and should be a minority in tech. If you affix the reason being primarily in biology you have made it functionally unsolvable.

why is muh women in tech considered a social problem worthy of addressing?