Toute langue crée son monde, donne une autre perspective. Perde une langue, c’est réduire sa perspective. Et je suis d’avis que le monde a besoin d’autant de façons de voir et de concevoir que possible.
https://www.acadienouvelle.com/mon-opinion/2017/08/09/grace-de-langue/
What unites the two countries often seems far more substantial than what divides them—an innate sense of elegance, a passion for gastronomy and proud histories of artistic and intellectual attainment. But all that, says Franco Venturini, is precisely what bedevils their relations. France and Italy both consider themselves the cultural superpower of Europe and the result is reciprocal jealousy. For Mr Venturini, who is a columnist on an Italian daily, Corriere della Sera, but French-educated and an officer of the Légion d’Honneur, the links between the two countries are “very close, yet not characterised by any great love. We’re like two cousins, each of whom thinks she is the prettier.”
I’ve lately been seeing lots of very troubling sentiments on social media in regards to Charlottesville and the Alt Right white identitarian movements protest at historical monuments. What I seem to be witnessing is more of a show or performance than an actual condemnation for what identitarian movements stand for. People are very swift to call out the white identitarian movements and their obvious troubling political stances. However these same people are very much silent when it comes to calling out violence on the left for example the shooter who attacked the Republican congressmen or the constant violence antifascists cause when someone they dislike has a speaking engagement. Some even go so far as to label anybody politically right of their position as never condemning racism and that that white identitarians are representative of mainstream Republicans and conservatives. This is not an arbitrary characterization but a deliberate act.
This sort of disconnect appears to be ingrained in the positions of left leaning individuals. They for whatever reason whether it be willful ignorance or simply naivety are unable to grasp why a white identitarian movement would grow despite countless other groups creating their own to display their grievances. The left demands that a person’s outward “labels” only qualify them to weigh on the feelings of people with the exact same characteristics. If color or sex or gender or other identity determines one’s interests, then the Klan is right to argue for the “interests” of white people. Why shouldn’t they? If social legitimacy is a zero-sum game, then why shouldn’t each group have its exclusive advocates? Their understanding of why Trump was elected is laughably ridiculous from conspiracies with Russians or that America secretly has millions of racists who came out just for this election. This would be wrong on both counts. Trump was elected in part to smash the pieties and hypocrisy that held Republicans always guilty and Democrats always innocent.That sort of thing gets noticed. And when it continues despite polite requests to stop, blunter means will be utilized. Why the hell do you think the goons in Charlottesville were chanting”You will not replace us”? Where do you think they got the idea? I’ll tell you where: from a media that for over a decade has been gleefully telling all who’d listen that white people are on the way out.
Ideally people would be able to see that they dislike white identity politics and be self aware enough to realize the trouble that their own clinging identity politics is causing. Despite what identitarians will tell you there is an alternative. Rather than focusing on the person putting forth the argument, rather than elevating ad hominem attacks to a moral principle, focus on the argument, and what it means for us a society. You don’t have to be any particular color to know that racism, sexism and bigotry of all kinds is wrong. You don’t have to have lived injustice to recognize it and work against it. If we as people adopted the approach of striving for what is actually morally right instead of living with a morally relativistic mindset we would be far better off. We would be able to see actual progress if we fought for the ideals of procedural justice for all under the law rather than seeking social justice we would see progress. After all JFK didn’t say “Ask what your country can do for you based on your identity” did he.
The arrogance of most of the comments reflects exactly the type of smug self-appointed superiority that has led to widespread resentment of the left among reasonable people. To the extent that such views correspond to those at Google, they vindicate the essayist’s claims about the authoritarian and repressive atmosphere there. Even the response by Google’s new VP in charge of diversity simply ignores all of the author’s arguments, and vacuously affirms Google’s commitment to diversity.
http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/
In 2014, Google started publishing employee demographic data and pledging to invest in major initiatives to recruit a more diverse workforce, spending at least $265 million on the efforts.
Despite Google and its parent company’s public statements in support of diversity in technology and multiple outreach and community programs, it seems to have made little headway since it began publishing its workforce demographic data three years ago.
https://www.axios.com/googles-diversity-efforts-are-making-little-progress-2470784457.html
As typical, the Atlantic comes perilously close to the answer, only to bury the lede and move on.
“… at most college campuses the attitude is that men are the problem. … I’ve had male students tell me that their first week in college they were made to feel like potential rapists.”
Added Maloney: “There’s a lot of attention on empowering girls. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, but males are the ones in crisis in education.”
Though advocates complain that few in higher education are doing enough to keep those men who do get there from leaving, there’s consensus that men’s reluctance to enroll in the first place isn’t necessarily the colleges’ fault. The problem has its origins as early as primary school, only to be fueled later on by economic forces that discourage men from believing a degree is worth the time and money.
In other words, men don’t feel welcome on college campuses any longer. Educations are mostly taught by women for women. And because most women tend to gravitate to the social sciences the pushes for diversity often don’t include men as the focus remains on women not being highly represented in certain educational paths.
Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.
Ironically, the media response to the memo simply validates the now ex-employee’s point when he writes:
unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber
and
silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
What is left unsaid in most of the coverage is that the memo’s ideas are also a deadly threat to thousands of jobs in the “diversity” industry (e.g., Google’s VP of Diversity). People whose jobs depend on an uncritical acceptance of an ideological position naturally react badly to any critique of it.
Original memo: http://diversitymemo.com/#reply
Which is to say that, regardless of one’s view on the contents of the memo, the ostensibly “neutral” position is not likely to be a neutral position at all. Or, put another way: One can’t avoid delving into this in depth by contending bluntly that the details don’t matter, when, for better or worse, they absolutely do. As I wrote a couple of years ago, I am quite happy for private companies to respond to their customers and the culture in which they exist, and I do not wish to impose any laws that would prevent them from doing so. But to acknowledge that this is what they are doing is merely to move our point of inquiry from the companies themselves to the forces that inform their decisions. There is a severe imbalance in those forces, and one that’s worth remarking on. There’s no neutral position here, I’m afraid.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450272/neutral-position-google-story-isnt-neutral-all
Do we find that “countries that lack gender equity in school enrollment” and “stereotypes associating science with males” have fewer women in tech?
No. Galpin investigated the percent of women in computer classes all around the world. Her number of 26% for the US is slightly higher than I usually hear, probably because it’s older (the percent women in computing has actually gone down over time!). The least sexist countries I can think of – Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, etc – all have somewhere around the same number (30%, 20%, and 24%, respectively). The most sexist countries do extremely well on this metric! The highest numbers on the chart are all from non-Western, non-First-World countries that do middling-to-poor on the Gender Development Index: Thailand with 55%, Guyana with 54%, Malaysia with 51%, Iran with 41%, Zimbabwe with 41%, and Mexico with 39%. Needless to say, Zimbabwe is not exactly famous for its deep commitment to gender equality.
Acerbity [əˈsɜːbɪtɪ] 