Google's destructive ideology

Having recently watched a video from Project Veritas regarding Google, I wish to point out an element of stupidity.

Firstly, the video was apparently removed from YouTube, but it can (currently) still be viewed here.
Edit: the video was taken down from there, but can be viewed on the Veritas website here.

8 minutes 40 seconds into the video, a policy document  from Google is shown. A small element is highlighted, and the video going on to make a point about that. However, I wish to comment on a part that is not highlighted (at this stage... I haven't actually finished watching the video yet).

It reads:
"If a representation is factually accurate, can it still be algorithmic unfairness?
Yes. For example, imagine that a Google image query for "CEOs" shows predominantly men. Even if it were a factually accurate representation of the world, it would be algorithmic unfairness because it would reinforce a stereotype about the role of women in leadership positions."

Contrary to Google's ideology, a "fact" is not a "stereotype".
Even in their example, they do not say that the image query showed only men. The truth is that the majority of CEOs are men. To have things that accurately represent facts is helpful.

A planet's gravity pulls objects towards it. It would be idiotic to say, "Sorry, NASA, but your images of the Mars Exploration Rovers reinforce a stereotype about gravity."
Some things may change over time, but we have to work with what we know at this time. And at this time, the majority of CEOs are men.

This is how we end up with the current gender mess. The number of non-heterosexual people make up less than 10% of the population (in Western countries, that have decided they don't understand gender anymore). But, if you read the news, if you look at company and organisational policies, it would paint a different picture.

What we have is a clear example of how media (predominantly the internet, with sites like Pinterest and Tumblr) influences society because of a biased representation and a destruction of what is "normal".

But this section of text in the Google document goes on to say:
"In some cases, it may be appropriate to take no action if the system accurately affects current reality, while in other cases it may be desirable to consider how we might help society reach a more fair an equitable state..."

What defines "fair"? What defines "equitable"? These are ideological terms. If you want men's and women's sports to be more equal, then have women compete with men. Of course, that wouldn't be "fair" because of obvious differences between men and women. But why it is inappropriate to say that the differences between men and women might be the reason for women to choose different careers to men?

It's an astounding example of double standards.

Forcing an ideological worldview onto consumers who are just wanting information is a recipe for disaster. This is exactly why Google is facing so many problems at the moment. Their attempt at "fairness" and "equity" is inherently biased, and the average citizen sees that things just aren't adding up.

And then comes election tampering. Watching the whole of the video shows that Google fully intends to project its ideology to prevent the re-election of Trump in the 2020 US election.

Trust the Irish!

Here is a screenshot of a news article on the Notre Dame restoration from Irish Central:

The title says the restoration IS a worthwhile cause...

The text under the photo says it is NOT one of them...

So, which is it?!?!

And I'm proved correct!

Following on directly from the previous post...

Even though I'm not on Twitter, it's amazing how much of it I can access.
Here's a tweet that I just found:

There we have it: even gay people don't care about the difference between "queer" and "a queer"!

I am now certain that this whole thing is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics.

Orwellian double speak, eat your heart out!

Linguistic gymnastics

I'm trying to keep up with one of the current debates on free speech: that of Steven Crowder and Carlos Maza, and Maza's attempts to have Crowder banned on YouTube.

Personally, I find Crowder quite amusing although I sometimes stop his videos before they finish because they can be quite lengthy. As for Maza's videos, I find them dull and incredibly misleading. His humour really isn't 'up my street'.

But that's all by-the-by.

I came across this article, written by someone who is clearly on Maza's side (but that doesn't bother me, I like to be informed of both sides of debates, unlike many others...) and I figure the author must be incredibly swamped in this current LGBT-add-a-letter linguistic nightmare.

Here's the quote that got me:
"Maza, by the way, doesn’t refer to himself as “a queer”, but rather as “queer” – and yes, that makes a world of difference. “Queer” is one of those words that can be both a slur and a regular adjective and you have to look at the context of the sentence in which it’s used to know the intention behind it, but of course such an exercise requires a minimum amount of intellectual honesty."

I'm not sure about "intellectual honesty"... If a gay person says to me, "I'm queer," or, "I'm a queer," I will think exactly the same thing. I will certainly not be thinking, "Hey, wait a minute, was the indefinite article used there or not?"

I'm just convinced this whole thing is an exercise in linguistic gymnastics.

It's absolutely insane!

Bad statistics on gun violence

This morning, British viewers could watch Piers Morgan interviewing Donald Trump. I won't say much about Piers Morgan or Donald Trump - they can both say pretty stupid things at times. But, when it comes to this whole 'gun control' debate, Piers always comes up with silly arguments.

Here is one of them (talking of a shooting in Paris):
"More people were shot dead in America that week than have died from guns in Paris since the Second World War."

Sounds like a pretty crazy statistic, doesn't it? Surely that's evidence that guns are bad or evil?

No, the crazy part about the statistic is the vast difference in populations. America has a far greater population than Paris, even if you try to figure out the 'population' of Paris since WWII. That numbers game alone shows that it would be expected that there would be more shootings in America... because there are more people! A mathematical similarity would be saying that more sixes are rolled when 200 people roll dice than when 5 people roll dice. Well, d'uh!!

Piers actually pointed the real issue when he says:
"In Britain, we have 35 gun deaths a year."

What he's essentially saying (although avoiding saying it directly) is that when a country bans guns, there are still shootings.

Banning guns does not reduce this number to zero. What is does do, though, is increase other areas of crime. As Trump rightly states:
"But Piers, in London you have stabbings all over."

So, whilst still having a degree of gun crime, the UK has a huge problem with knife crime.

And hence the reality of the statement that if people want to commit a crime, they will find a way to do it.

The problem is that some people don't follow laws, and they get away with it for a while. In the UK, people can get hold of guns illegally. And that's the same in the USA: people who would be banned from purchasing a gun somehow slip through the net.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the crime.

The "Equality Act"

Here is an interesting comment I found on Youtube:

For a while, I have believed that there are inconsistencies in the modern 'laws', and it is nice to know that I am not alone.



It seems to me that it is not good enough to simply treat all people as human beings, accepting that we might have a different outlook on life. Instead, unless I actively endorse ideologies that I find harmful (dare I say, 'base' or 'toxic'), then I am a [insert misapplied offensive word] and a 'hate speaker'.

No. I am not speaking 'hate', I merely express an alternative point of view.

Is it 'hate speech' to say that chocolate is bad for you and indulging in it will make you fat?
No. And neither is it 'hate speech' to suggest that perhaps there are other lifestyles that are bad for you and may result in negative consequences.

Your imagination can run wild as to what I might or might not be referring to.


Youtube comment found on this video.