Let's say there's 20 Bobs in your class, and they are pushy, not pushy because that would be harrasment ;) Also the Bobs don't give a shit about the class, they just got in to talk about [INSERT ANNOYING HOBBY].
It's totally okay if you say something that's totally not equivalent.
>he purest romantic intentions (the post talks of wife material, not one night stands)
Sure, using academic data to statically enter the easiest class with most chicks exudes pure romanticism. I'm sure the upperclassmen playing professor in a lab or doing the work of women they find attractive is totally helping the students learning.
No unwanted advances are taking place is code for "no forced touch or stalking is happening".
I've seen some downright hideous guys get laid and get a girlfriend. They didn't use first year classes as a shittier Tinder, nor were they especially aggressive. The problem seems to be elsewhere...
Let's change the subjects from "horny upperclassmen" to "MLM representatives that want to get new suckers". Would you be fine with going to a class where a significant percentage of people are trying to get you to sell Amway products? And they don't give a damn about the class?
Damore was (with a lot of benefit of the doubt) totally clueless. Sure, he'll talk about how he thinks that discrimination is bad, and how he doesn't approve of sexism. He turns around and says that women are just neurotic and "more people focused", based on suspect evidence.
Of course you will point out that he was juts talking about the population, and reducing people top that is very bad mkay. He is totally not talking about the fine gals at Google!
I could believe that he believes this, but the end result is that the 20% of Blind that is just misogynist assholes get more brazen.
Manu (lightly!) criticized his company with lighthearted cartoons. Demore in practice called 30% of his coworkers neurotic weaklings.
Well the grandfather comment talked about disability compensation inflation, aka, simple fraud. I don't think it overly outrageous to consider that someone that works for an organization that (recently!) backed death squads, would stoop to fraud for personal gain. They have done literal illegal human experimentation (MKUltra) on random people or even on their own.
I'm not saying that I KNOW this is X plot with Y intentions (most probably it's just mass psychosis) It's just that I do not take what a CIA operative says at face value.
>In the academy, left-wing beliefs dominate; therefore, the affirmative action supporters would be first and foremost demanding preferences for conservatives, libertarians, moderates, fascists, monarchists, and other people who do not accept the current progressive orthodoxy.
This is simply being obtuse for the sake of flame-bating, caring about diversity is simply a shorthand for the inclusion of sectors that were and are (actually) prejudiced against. The actual "practical" usefulness of diversity is more "perhaps we should try this facial recognition software with black skin", not the PR-esque "being different is superpower".
And no, you aren't a prejudiced because you are conservative, not even when people disagree with you on Twitter. Yes, Twitter mobs are actually a thing, yes they are dangerous, no they aren't that common. It's true that American liberals are overly interested in racial injustice to the detriment of class injustice, and affirmative action could be better based on socio-economic status.
Saying "You just don't get it" isn't really an argument. The only times I've seen Myers-Briggs used are either as harmless entertainment ("Look at this meme. I'm such a INFP, tee hee.") or in Brazil-esque corporate settings where it could actually affect your employment ("Sorry, we were hoping for a XSTX person"). Sure, my experience is purely anecdotal much like most people here, but you could've shown us a counterexample, instead of wasting time implying that another user is a lazy moron.
You mention that hucksters peddle it for things that it's isn't useful for, but in what context is it useful? The realization that people have different ways of thinking, abilities and interest, which in turn means they are good at different kinds of work isn't the invention of the MBTI. Why does a 4-axis test help with this? Why should people take it seriously, especially considering it's highly commercialized?
No it's not, the relationship between the company itself and the employees is fundamentally hostile, the desires of the shareholders will, also, expand to fill up all of space-time if you let them. I'm not saying this out "everybody can be friends :D", just that each one keeps the other in check.
Also, a lot of the NYT is already unionized and the apocalypse you speak of hasn't happened.
So again, if they treat their employees well they have nothing to fear.
>Yes, he's being aggressive; no, there's nothing wrong with that.
Being an asshole is bad, specially when you are asking for help. Not being an asshole doesn't make you a corporate shill nor being an asshole make your feedback "better".