I just feel like some people are overdoing it. I mean...chill. What I mean regarding "empirical" vs "anecdotal", is whether these individuals have done any research into the action/entity which has micro-aggressed against them. Even well-researched areas often come up with outlandish headlines. As in: "literally...a deep legacy of misogyny". Really?
I'm still lost. It just reminds of those vintage threads in the garm when someone would talk about Barkley but post a picture of clarence weatherpoon by mistake.
I'm pretty sure that women and men aren't equal, so what's the issue? https://blog.udacity.com/2018/02/diversity-ai-data-advisory-board.html On Wednesday, we introduced our Artificial Intelligence and Data Industry Advisory Board. We envisioned a dynamic and evolving group that would feature a rotating set of experts. But when we introduced the current members on Wednesday, there were negative reactions, primarily because the twelve current members we introduced are men. We’ve heard confusion, frustration, anger, and disappointment. This does not reflect the hard-won accomplishments of many women in the AI field. It doesn’t reflect the effort our teams have put in to reach broader and underrepresented audiences in this field, such as with our current Data Science scholarships. And importantly, it doesn’t reflect our values, which are centered on bringing greater access to careers in fields like AI to everyone in the world. Each of the current board members is an incredible talent, and we remain grateful for their individual contributions and insights. And we believe in the idea of this board. But as the organizers, we have to acknowledge we have not yet achieved what we can and should achieve, and that we have failed. We are acting on this now. Last night, we met with our current board members. We shared all the feedback we’ve gathered and received. We discussed everything, and we agreed on what we’re going to do. The current board term ends in a week. All involved are committed to ensuring that the next group will reflect a far greater degree of diversity. Our current members have pledged their support, their networks, and their influence, to help us accomplish this, for which we are deeply grateful. We’re eager to introduce our new members when the next board has been fully assembled. We’ve already confirmed one new member, and are humbled and excited she is joining us. Our work is ongoing.
Anecdotal vs Empirical. I can make this more clear. Stackoverflow, every year, conducts a developer survey. This past year's survey results, much like years past, shows that nearly 90% of respondents are male. Ok. It also shows that the male:female ratio is nearly 16 for "Machine learning specialist": a ratio that is higher than that for all survey respondents (i.e. 94% male vs 88% male). Ok. Therefore, it might stand to reason, that an all-male advisory board, such as in the Twitter case, could happen (without any use of "sexism" or "misogyny"). That is far more empirical than what happened on Twitter, where an individual merely produced a list of known females within the field of AI. That was very anecdotal of them. BTW, this was not a criticism of women, it was merely a dive into the data.
"There but the grace of God go I" I think the OP's point is to suggest that there are people today who push for equality of result, as opposed to equality of opportunity. Without denying that some institutional discrimination perhaps does exist, I will say that people who simply look at an outcome and proclaim discrimination project a lack of curiosity. These people can label themselves as many things, and "feminist" happens to be one of those labels. The OP here presents an isolated case, though I have seen others. The caveat is how much should we take into account these examples? We are programmed to form pattern recognition after all. The extreme result would be letting a few cases bias you into not listening to anyone who identify themselves with these labels. The key is listening to each other and agreeing without malice to what the disagreement is. The writer of that tweet may very well have experienced sexism that you and I can both agree to, and that is what forms her background state. People are complicated. Either way laughing at someone or telling someone that they're stupid isn't the way to go in forming understanding. I will agree that "Libritards" and "3rd Wave Feminazis" exist, but I personally would try not use those words. Because those words do not create dialogue. Mutual healing starts with mutual hearing. /2 cents.
Equal opportunity yield lopsided results? Possibly. Consistently indicates there isn’t equal opportunity or there is bias to a side. Unless you subscribe to, certain groups are different.
There are a lot of white and Asian males in tech. This is no shocker. Go take a second year Comp Sci or Comp Eng class and you will see what I'm talking about.
What is the point of your posts? Seriously, I do not grok in the least. Fun fact: Banging your head against a wall burns 150 calories an hour.
Watters's post seems to be rehashing a trend of complaining anytime a an authoritative group or board doesn't have any female members. The point seems to make more sense if the specific organization is charged with discussing a women's issue or some kind of diversity or inclusion initiative, but obvious none of those circumstances apply so it's a bit of a hollow complaint and less than stellar post. That doesn't change Coheto from being the kind of moron who claims that H1B's are affecting black's job opportunities in one breath, then citing our "culture" when discussing crime or gun violence in another.
Have you ever considered trying to learn how to express yourself more clearly? I know you probably think it's easier to be vague so you can run away from your stupid threads when they don't work out the way you wanted, but if you ever want to be taken seriously as a human being, you might have to get over that.
