E Pur Si Muove

I think I can change two works of your statement and make it a criticism of the Bay Area.

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) supporting Trump is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.

It's not that you can't have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going to feel OK about it.

The issue I have with this perspective is that it is not applied equally. I do think you should get protection but I think that same protection should be applied to all groups. Next week I could say in front of my team "All Trump supporters are deranged psychopaths." I would get a few odd looks, my manager might tell my privately to tone it down. If I said the same thing about LQBT folk I would guess I have a 50% chance of being fired.

This feels like a double standard to me and makes me question if the people who support diversity and inclusion really mean it or if they only want what they approve.

I looked for all your comments with your name in my history. Not a single one of them links to anything.

> What, the poor countries have different gender ratios claim? I addressed that.

You haven't addressed it, though. You claim it's based on economic growth, yet cite no evidence. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary: the UK has a bigger (and more advanced) economy than India, and a bigger participation of women in STEM. The same goes for Norway vs. US. In fact, Latin America has a much higher participation when compared with, say, Asia for comparable economic growth.

Even if we take the US in isolation, your claim doesn't hold up: we have grown at a relatively steady pace for the past few decades and more women participate on STEM fields today that they did in the 80s and 90s. If "economic growth" was the one driving factor, you'd see the exact opposite.

Again, are you sure you are putting enough effort into validating your statements? Here are two sets of statistics you might want to consider [1][2]

> How is Russia doing today after a ton of economic growth?

Russia has gone through a huge amount of "Westernization" since the Berlin Wall came down, so trying to make the case that economic growth or cultural shift are 100% to account for the changes is a fool's errand.

> In 2016 Russia had the highest percentage of patents filed by women, at about 16%

What makes you think that patent filings of all things represents industry participation? You have to be careful, you could easily conclude there are no males younger than 24 in a given industry if you used patents filed as your only data source. I think the links I posted above, in particular [2] are a better reference.

[1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-inclusive-growth-and-dev...

[2] http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/fs43-wom...

I'm still not sure if you do this on purpose or not, but you again answer a question that was not asked. I didnt make any conclusion in the previous post, so you are responding some question about conclusions that is not relevant to the context.

> Damore does not provide proof of anything like that happening. His biggest gripe is that Google is proactively reaching out to minority groups in order to try to get more candidates from that pool. He also mentions a "high priority queue for diversity hires", but I haven't found any evidence of that and he doesn't provide any.

I dont work at google, but i have never heard any of the rebuttals or official statements by google saying that it's not true they benefit minorities in their process. In any case, if Damore claimed that was happening and it isn't, then everyone can be happy, because Damore was asking precisely to stop doing that, and noone needs to feel attacked.

>So, let me get this straight: you are criticizing my analysis of a manifesto you haven't read

I think you haven't read my first post at all ,where i start by saying it haven't read it. Talk about accusing people of not reading the source!

> Your criticism is not based on published statistics, academic studies or any other kind of hard evidence, but rather hearsay and anecdata.

My criticism is based on the most classical anecdotal case, that Damore made an essay, there was a shitstorm and he got fired. That was my original topic. I have made no opinion on the contents of the essay , because i haven't read it nor its a topic I find interesting.

> That has to be the most Argentine behavior I've seen in a while.

Thats xenophobic. Bear in mind that if you had made this comment on twitter, you would run the risk of being fired and also become unemployable.

I think this last comment is enough. You sounded sour for a lot of your exchanges, but when you start insulting I lose interest. Hope you enjoyed the conversation.