101–110 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate on what in your mind is the correct interpretation ? Because, reading his memo, I had the exact same takeaway as the Techcrunch quote you posted here.
Probably something like "Women are more interested in other fields, so they end up working in these fields instead of tech."
What does this even mean? People booed simply because they were white and male? I honestly don't get it. And who did the booing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the quote you pulled not saying the same thing as this from Damore's memo? > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Edit: ebbv beat me to it
There's a difference between "fewer women wind up having the skills for X" and "women are worse at X".
"fewer women wind up having the skills for X in part due to biological causes" and "women are worse at X".
Will watch this with interest AFAIK discriminating against conservative white men isn’t illegal. It’s not a protected class. There must be some twist here.
(and just to make sure : people should be treated just great even if they're different, meaning they have different abilities somehow, somewhere, and we don't know them all because science isn't advanced enough yet to make any kind of definitive statement).
EDIT : And for those with a great desire of flaming people in public, i suggest tracking people that :
- don't believe climate change is due to human activity
- don't believe public social security should cover every expense
- don't like electric cars, or keep driving SUVs
- have been found watching (racial) porn at the office
- have made any kind of bad joke on any minority
- have made public declaration (at the office cafetaria to his neighbor) supporting any decision by president Trump.
- has bought a gun for his home
- think Google should pay its taxes. Oh no, wait this one is still too controversial.
Just to clarify, is he stating he was fired due to his gender/political views? I would assume the literal army of attorneys will point to various violations of Code of Conduct or Employment Agreement Damore undoubtedly broke. He openly published a memo condemning his employer, tarnishing the brand and bringing the company under considerable negative press. I figure there must be some clause in any employment agreemen…
I never really saw too much issue with what he wrote. It seemed a lot of people were mad at him for things he never said. It's been awhile since I read his document, but I remember expecting it to be so bad from all the uproar I was hearing, but after reading it I couldn't find much to be angry about. Can someone enlighten me - i'll admit, this may be a highly ignorant topic of mine.
Its two problems our industry literally created: Sensationalist click farming and information overload. Our industry does not take these problems seriously enough. Damore was fired because of the outrage, not because of the article, but the outrage was manufactured by a sensationalist click machine and information overload culture literally championed by the company he was fired from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From his memo: > I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. He said exactly that, right there. Why do conservatives…
Actual quote: > the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Do you not see the difference?
It's always the same kind of crap from bigots. "Women MIGHT be less capable of engineering." "Black people MIGHT be more prone to crime." "Gay people MIGHT be more likely to be pedophiles." and it's always based in bigotry, not in science or evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In California, yes
Could you please provide more detail?
TLDR: yes, and there are certain exceptions, IANAL so not sure where this particular case falls
Is there actually any US law against discrimination based on political stance?
They aren't a federally protected group according to this list. This particular situation though is extra hairy because even if it was religious the offended parties could argue that a protection is not a license to advocate discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group