comment 0

Most prevalent human problem is open defecation

I read National Geographic whenever I have the time.

What’s fantastic about the magazine’s August 2017 issue is the report that no hygienic sanitation — to make a toilet that’s basic & safe from poop which hosts disease — is the most widespread social and public health problem in the world today.

People with a Social Justice Warrior ideology who get embroiled with gender identity politics, race relation politics, and white privilege in western countries should absolutely disregard these politics so as to focus on much needed hygienic toilets for people around the world!

Lack of safe toilets from poop that carry bacteria that cause cholera, dysentery, and other diseases being hosted by human feces, is the most widespread social and health problem in human societies in this second decade of the 21st century.

Read the below:

Also women in societies that practice pooping and peeing in fields, beside roads, like to talk with each other while doing their “open defecation”.

To me this is not strange because I see women socializing when they go to the washroom together. I see it all the time when I go to public washrooms! 😊.

comment 0

Google cancels company meeting meant to discuss diversity

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has canceled a planned diversity meeting because Google staffer comments in Google’s internal discussion boards were doxxed.

The doxxed comments (found below) show righteous social justice.

I only disagree with the righteous aspect because James Damore was fired.

Yes, he wrote his opinion that “biology” is why men seek out senior ranking jobs that don’t have work-life balance. He wrote that men are the majority in senior level jobs simply because they want status (which is true), and those jobs require more hours than work-life balance allows. However, he still shouldn’t have been fired.

With firing James Damore, Google only confirmed his polite criticism that Google’s corporate culture is an “Ideological Echo Chamber“.

Google colleagues also confirmed the truth that Google is an Ideological Echo Chamber because several of them posted the following in Google’s company discussion boards:

Paul Cowan:

The document is a trashfire.”

Joel Becker:

Going forward, I cannot — and I will not — work with James Damore.

I will not attend any meetings where James Damore will be present.

Sitaram Iyer:

“…the bar to whatever one can say and get away with has just been significantly lowered…”

Colm Buckley:

Yes, this is ‘silencing’. I intend to silence these views; they are violently offensive.”

Dave O’Connor:

“…it is incumbent on us who have known privilege to call this shit out, and be relentless in doing so. I’ve been the beneficiary of a system stacked in my favour for my entire career, and it becomes literally my job to not be putting up with this.”

Social Justice is a wonderful thing …only when the justice doesn’t establish barriers, bigotry and discrimination in reverse toward people who are members of the historic “privileged” gender or race.

Social Justice can’t be real progress when the justice only flips the direction privilege is being granted.

By reverse or flip I simply mean the disadvantaged gender, race, and other protected status group become the privileged people while the historic privileged group of people become the disadvantaged demographic.

Get what I mean about social justice being tricky and can switch the recipient of privilege?

The privilege continues to exist, but is being directed to a new recipient.

Social justice, as it is, simply redirects “benefits and preference” to the protected status groups of people while retracting these “benefits and preference” from the group of people who don’t have protected status.

Protected status groups of people would be “Women” , “Visibile Minorities” , “Indigenous or Aboriginal people” , “People with disabilities“.

The group of people who don’t have protected status would be “White men without disabilities“. That’s one example.

So the redirected privilege now makes the protected status people the new privileged demographic.

Meanwhile, the historically privileged demographic of people — who would be “White men without disabilities” — become the new disadvantaged group of people.

I don’t see any current real-world example of social justice accurately creating an equal distribution of privilege.

If you do, then please let me know.

Also what could equal distribution really be?

It could be the equal recruiting and retention done by schools, businesses, and governments, of people with protected status and of people without protected status.

As it is right now, people with protected status are recruited and retained with preference so as to fulfill diversity policies.

The “White guys without disabilities” — who are without protected status — are not recruited and retained with preference. They are secondly recruited and retained.

The policy of diversity gives preference to people with protected status such as women, people who aren’t White, Indigenous North American people (Cree, Ojibwe, etc.), and any person with a disability.

If anyone has real-life examples of equal preference demonstrated by recruiting and retention that doesn’t do the following of:

1) Showing a regular preference of women over men when hiring for tenure STEM professorships at universities (<– this is a hyperlink that will open “National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference For Women on STEM Tenure Track“)

and

2) Demonstrating a regular preference to hire and retain people who have protected status. Meanwhile diversity policy assumes that people without protected status will always and forever be hired, retained, and have steady representation.

Is it possible that the assumption inherent in diversity policy is wrong?

This assumption is that the people without protected status (like the “White guy without disabilities”) will always be recruited, hired, retained and have representation without the helping hand of diversity policy.

It is possible that the group of people who don’t have protected status will number less and less in schools, businesses, and governments?

comment 0

Les chiffres contre Los números

I honestly hate the French system of counting.

Spanish is like English and uses different words for numbers 60, 70, 80 & 90.

But not the French cardinal numbers.

French numbers have different names up until the number 60.

Dix = Ten , Vingt = Twenty , Trente = Thirty , Quarante = Forty ,  Cinquante = Fifty , Soixante = Sixty

But French does not have new names for the numbers 70, 80, 90 until 100.

70 is literally “60 + 10” : “Soixante-dix”

80 is literally “4 × 20” : “Quatre-vingts”

90 is literally “4 × 20 + 10” : “Quatre-vingt-dix”

Who else counts like the French?!

Meanwhile the Spanish language counts like the English language.

Setenta = Seventy , Ochenta = Eighty , Noventa = Ninety

comment 0

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” , part 3

The Google senior software engineer, who wrote Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber, has been fired by Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai

Typical.

The problem I observe with firing James Damore is that it demonstrates that he was right about Google. He got fired for publishing a criticism of Google and for specifically voicing his own questions of hiring that prefers women in order to increase women’s representation in the Google departments.

Is there something wrong with questioning affirmative action when it’s 2017 and not 1988?

You can call the guy sexist because he talked about men and women, and his meandering thoughts on why men target high stress senior level jobs that can’t offer work/life balance and hours less than a 44 hour work week.

James Damore is shown, despite his opinions, that when any employee dares to actually analyse and question Google, then Google will fire that employee.

So, Google’s PR will state that Google values and upholds freedom of expression, speech, etc. However, Google will only allow “difficult political views” to be voiced and discussed within a scope of “principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws“.

Step out of that box and question the ideology of that scope, you get fired.

Oh well.

Anyway, I observe that an ideology or a culture is viewed as inclusive only when the policies and laws grant you protected status, and you benefit from being targeted by diversity hiring practices.

When you’re without a protected status because you’re member of a group that’s perceived as historically being favoured (which means privileged), you will face policies that don’t have preference for your gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. So, you can experience disadvantage.

Inclusion can become a funny pendulum swing. The efforts to increase representation of a gender, race, sexual orientation, etc., within a company or school does minus the representation of the gender, race, sexual orientation of a group who are assumed as being traditionally privileged.

comment 0

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” , part 2

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” asks: 

What is ideology, what is reality, and does ideology match reality?

Published in the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, in 2015, is a study called, “National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track“.

Hiring of women in Science and Technology jobs has been assumed to be sexist towards women and in favour of men. This assumption is now legitimately challenged.

Women who applied for professorships in STEM areas (excluding economics), were more likely to be hired than similarly qualified male candidates.

Men and women were selected in a 50/50 ratio for Economic professorships.

67 percent of the time, the hiring committee chose the female candidate for all other STEM professorships.

If a gender wasn’t preferred, which is sexism, we would expect men and women to be equally hired in a professorship to make a 50/50 ratio.

In 2015, the sexism preferred women over men.

So attitudes and beliefs do change, but this change can create barriers toward the traditionally privileged gender.

Sexism can be reversed to prefer women, and become discriminatory towards men.

The change can honestly be a pendulum swing that flips the favouritism. The favouritism still exists, which I see as not legitimate change. And why should I perceive favouritism that simply has been reversed as change that’s fair?

comment 0

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

A Google senior software engineer has only a few days ago emailed a 10 page “screed” or manifesto, or call it an opinion, internally to various Google coworkers.

The screed was titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”. It was first publicly posted on Gizmodo.

Gizmodo then did some edits and also removed charts and hyperlinks from the original 10 page document.

I prefer seeing original documents rather than only having access to edited copies of the original. However, Gizmodo kept the opinions expressed from the original document unedited.

I, honestly, support the male author’s concern that a voiced opinion, which does not conform with the culture, will get silenced with shaming or with shout downs.

The below is the intro paragraph of, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber“:

  • Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
  • This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
  • The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
  • Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
  • Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
  • Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The author is right or accurate in stating his observation that, “freedom from offense” actually is not “psychological safety“.

The avoidance of offending people, which is referred to as “psychological safety”, instead inclines a person to be too sensitive or hyper sensitive.

No exposure also inclines you to be less tolerant toward hearing spoken opinions that do not fit your beliefs, values and ideology.

So no exposure — through shaming those people with ideas that offend — instead will cause a person in the monoculture’s “echo chamber” to be less tolerant, less broad thinking, and less receptive to listening to weird or far fetched beliefs, values, and ideas.

In all, shaming is not the way to go when you’re in a business, a university classroom, etc.

There is such a thing as becoming a politically left authoritarian when you believe that no exposure to politically right ideas or to ideas that are contrary to your opinion and to your values is the best way to live your life.

comment 0

White Privilege

Racism makes me uncomfortable because it’s illegal where I live. But racism always and every day makes me uncomfortable because it’s an attack. Or it’s an unfair restriction that’s put on a person or onto a group of people because of their race.

Racism is done interpersonally by one person to another, or it’s a set of unfair restrictions imposed on a race of people by a country’s institutions (government, schools, etc.), which is through its laws, rules and policies.

“White Privilege” has lately irked and bothered me because of the word “White”.

White Privilege is assumed as preferential treatment within institutions

“White” and “Privilege” are put together, and is understood as a truth that is true now and will forever be immutably true. It’s a static fact that will be a fact 100 years from now.

White Privilege targets and accuses people of European descent, or who are seen as White. It unfairly puts restrictions on White people because they are assumed to be privileged in any and all situations. People perceived as White are accused by “White Privilege” as having privilege in any country, society, or location in the world.

These restrictions of White Privilege, which are accusations of privilege, cause the experience of discrimination.

Interpersonal discrimination, or racism, would be this example:

I was in the parking lot that’s behind the Allin Clinic in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, and I was trying to pay for parking my car.

I was approached and asked for coined money (you know, change) by an Indigenous lady.

I said ‘No’ because 1) I actually had no coins, and 2) I don’t give money when asked in the parking lot and on any street in downtown Edmonton.

Across the parking lot, and on the sidewalk, an Indigenous man then yelled at me, saying, “This is her land, you stole this land from herYou don’t give her any money, but you stole this land from her.”

That man targeted me for my perceived race (European descent), and then made an interpersonal racist accusation against me because of my perceived ethnicity.

The idea of White Privilege has accused me.

White Privilege is assumed

That restriction would be the discrimination I experienced in the above example.

So White Privilege is racist.

It’s racist because it negatively simplifies, categorizes and accuses White people as being privileged despite poverty, geographic location, natural disaster, and the list goes on.

Poverty is a universal human experience.

Natural disaster is a universal experience.

But White Privilege classifies White people’s experience of poverty, natural disaster, or war as privileged.

This is a plain sight racist belief to even assume that a poor White person in Canada or the United States has a better time or a privileged time compared to a poor African American person, or a poor South Asian person living in Canada, etc.

In the United States, White people, Black people and Hispanic and Native American people experience poverty without famine. The idea of White Privilege doesn’t cause one group to experience famine during poverty while the other ethnicities avoid famine during their poverty. Neither race in the U.S. experiences famine while being poor.

But being poor in a country like Ukraine during 1932 to 1933 meant suffering a famine. The native Ukrainians were starved by another group of White people (the Russians) because Soviet Russia did not want the Ukrainian people to be their own independent country. Soviet Russia subjugated Ukraine to grow food to be only available for the Soviet Russians to collect and eat. Those harvests were always collected by the Soviets and shipped to Russia. The White Privilege of White Skinned Ukrainians did not exist. Instead White Privilege is an invented word by a White American Woman named Peggy McIntosh.

Read Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege essay titled, “WHITE PRIVILEGE AND MALE PRIVILEGE: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences Through Work in Women’s Studies,” or her essay titled “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” today in 2017 instead of in 1988 and 1989.

Her checklist is much less relevant in 2017 simply because decades of time have elapsed since the woman wrote her first essay in 1988 and then a revision in 1989.

I will go through her checklist right now:

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time. — No. No because I am living in a multicultural and multiethnic Canadian city.

2. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live. — No. The Housing Market is expensive in the city where I live, but less expensive than Toronto. Toronto’s real estate is much more unaffordable.

3. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me. — No. Our neighbour complains about our pet cat.

4. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed. — No. Stores have video cameras. I’m recorded by video when I shop. Also the self-checkouts at grocery stores like Safeway have employees who will check my bags to see that I’m not leaving without paying. My race won’t privilege me from avoiding getting my grocery bags checked. So my bags get looked through.

5. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented. — Yes, but No. People with my skin colour are represented, but represented alongside with other people of various skin colour and ethnicities. This is because I live in a multicultural and multiethnic Canadian city.

6. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civilization,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is. — No. Canada is an immigrant country. Indigenous Canadians or First Nations (Dene, Blackfoot, etc.) are the first people who had settled and made their communities on North and South America. Second came the Europeans who made contact with the First Nations. Or the history is being revised to include the oral stories and archeology of First Nations people in Canada. Also, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission includes the history of the Residential Schools that were operated in Canada.

7. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race. — Yes, but also No. Western Civilization is a lump sum topic on White people that is taught, but is also not taught. You have to find the high school or university that teaches Western Civilization as a subject because not all high schools and universities include Western Civilization in their curriculum.

8. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege. — Yes. Example: Peggy McIntosh got her White Privilege essay published.

9. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser’s shop and find someone who can cut my hair. — Yes, and No. A business can be very specific, or can be a store or restaurant that specializes in Afghan food, or specializes in threading eyebrows. So there are businesses that cater to a specific ethnicity. But all franchise grocery stores (Save On Foods) and stores with pharmacies (Shoppers Drugmart) have changed since 1988 and they now include Asian foods, Muslim foods that are Halal, and hair care products for African hair.

10. Whether I have checks, credit cards, or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability. — No. My credit rating determines my financial reliability. Bad credit rating will make things, like a loan, or trying to rent from a new landlord, a lot less accessible. Also Number 10 from the checklist doesn’t include asking a homeless White person if they still have privilege that allows them to skip being judged when they have a bank account but only a homeless shelter as their address. Where in this checklist is the question of Homelessness?

11. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them. — Yes, and No. My kids could be subjected to racism. I certainly experienced racism in a parking lot.

12. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race. — No. There is such an idea as “Poor White Trash”.

13. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial. — No. Al Qaeda, or the groups of Muslim men who claim that Islam means they have to be disgusted with Western White women because they don’t wear a niqab (face veil), hijab (head scarf), or a burqa (full body covering) have made it clear to me that I will be judged by those men as representative of my race when we meet.

14. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race. — Is this relevant?

15. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. — I have been a Token or a minority. I was the Token White Girl during Grade 8 & 9 while friends with Asian girls in Vancouver. That wasn’t a bad experience for me because they were friends with me while other students would bully me.

16. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion. — This is such an outdated statement coming from a White American Woman in 1988 & 1989. Lol. The answer is No.

17. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider. — No. Example would be Jordan B Peterson.

18. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to “the person in charge,” I will be facing a person of my race. — Yes, and No. A person of any race will be supervisor or manager where I live because I live in a multicultural and multiethnic Canadian city.

19. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race. — I can’t speak about Canada Revenue Agency’s auditing because I don’t know. As well, it’s only traffic cameras, or photo radar, that ticket me.

20. I can easily buy posters, postcards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys, and children’s magazine featuring people of my race. — Yes. The answer is Yes in 2017 for all ethnicities being represented in library books, etc.

21. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared. — No and also Yes. A Christian will get dismissively snorted at when that person answers “the Bible” as their favourite book to the question of “What’s your favourite book?” in a university classroom that has a majority of students who are dismissive of Christianity or of Islam. A Christian is made to feel not welcomed and out of place in a public Canadian university classroom.

22. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of race. — I can’t answer this because all employers I ever worked for didn’t state in their job posting that they were an affirmative action employer.

23. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen. — I can’t answer this because I haven’t lived in a government subsidized apartment or townhouse.

24. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me. — Yes, and No. Many Male Muslim Middle Eastern medical doctors assume that all or most Western White Women are sexually promiscuous. So they profile White Women in their teens and 20s as often at risk of being STI carriers or of getting infected. The same doctors don’t profile Muslim women who are teenagers or young adults.

25. If my day, week, or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it has racial overtones. — “White Privilege“?

26. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “flesh” color and have them more or less match my skin. — In 2017, there is makeup for any and all skin colours.

The above was Peggy Mcintosh’s 1989 “Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack” checklist for White Privilege.

Passage of time has meant that race relations change, and change fast.

It hasn’t been 1988 & 1989 for a while.

Authors of essays have to publish again and again their ideas so as to keep relevant. Authors have to republish because the people they were accusing no longer have privilege.

White Privilege is, in other words, a Racist Belief. It’s racist towards any and all people who are visibly White or perceived as having European descent.

White people like Peggy McIntosh and Jane Elliot are vastly different but are still out of date. Both White women assume and accuse any and all White people as being privileged. But both White women haven’t edited and updated their ideas for 2017. Their ideas of White Privilege is dated 1988, 1989 and dated 1968.

White Privilege irks me because you or I can’t be trans race. I can’t move out of my race and immigrate into another race when my race is perceived as privileged and as a problem because of privilege.

I can’t move to a country where White Privilege wouldn’t be an accusation used against me. I can’t move out of my body and skin to another body and skin to avoid an Indigenous Canadian being racist to me in a parking lot.

So what if I was born in Canada? I’m perceived as White, the descendant of White European settlers, and therefore a person in a parking lot to be racist to.

This is why White Privilege is racist, and I just cannot support it and celebrate it as social justice.

Race is immutable, and that’s why people like myself and you will stand up against ideas and statements that are racist towards the race you’re member of.

Or you wouldn’t get offended and make a stand if you could just change your race when your life got more difficult because of racism.

You can try to be trans race, but today you would be rejected.

One such example is: Rachel Dolezal.

You can try to tan or bleach your skin, but your features of nose, eye lids, type of hair would get harmed by cosmetic surgery. Example of cosmetic surgery gone wrong would be Michael Jackson‘s rhinoplasty surgeries. His nose became deformed.

In all, when “Privilege” is coupled together with the word for the skin colour of a group of people, those people become the target of racism.

White Privilege is racist.