351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? You think I’m gonna fall for this b.s.? You just tried to cloak the claim that there’s more highly intelligent men in a bunch of nonsense. You’re only proving my point.
There are more highly intelligent men than women, because for men, the distribution is higher, look it up.
He doesn't have a choice really. With the PR mess he got himself into, no big company will ever hire him. Imagine the possible headlines "Microsoft hires the James Damore, the male supremacy advocate fired from Google". Nope, regardless the technical skill or his actual personality, his public image is forever ruined. So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe ultra-right organization…
This is true. If the memo wasn't enough, him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1] Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean this stuff has been studied for years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129348/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157091/ Maybe these studies are wrong, maybe the conclusions Damore drew were wrong (I certainly think they are). However, I think witch-hunting people for asking questions about sensitive topics is a much more clear and…
I just don't think you understand the problem here. Nobody is arguing that men and women aren't biologically different. Of course they are. The point is whether those biological differences significantly affect your ability to be a professional engineer. And you or Damore have provided zero evidence of this.
So, to me this reads as bias. When I read his claim, I don't see it as implying that women are in any way less capable of becoming professional engineers, but (in context to his other assertions) that they are less likely to desire becoming a professional engineer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it that one side gets to make claims accepted blindly as fact unquestionably (unequal representation of women is solely because of sexism) and the other side must be objective / scientific?
No. Neither side must make claims about what is not understood (which is nearly everything). Damore is the one making the claim, and one with very serious consequences.
This clearly is (or is going to be) a Demon Thread. https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-th... . People seem to be angry about what was said in the past, but don't agree on what was actually said or what those things meant. Attempts to clarify seem to mostly be throwing fuel on the fire instead. None of this is helping.
Social constructivists and progressive supremacists are the only ones angry about what he said -- he exposes their narrative as fraudulently based on moral principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was really what did it for me. I read the document and I'll be honest, I didn't really hear the dog whistles and I didn't get particularly worked up about it. I thought it kinda read like pseudo-science and that was about it. But then the dude appeared on Mike Cernovich's show and was all over r/the_donald and I was like, "oh this is who this guy is." I hate to judge someone by the company they keep but this guy…
So guilty by association ? That's healthy... What's truly sad about this is that he is the first I've heard of to propose actually fair measures we could take to promote gender diversity in IT, such as using more socially involved methods such as pair programming. Instead we get positive discrimination. This depiction by tech crunch is an insult to reporting, if you read/listen to the primary source, there is no hate…
The memo was as polite scientificly-backed and clearly written as it was reasonably possible without turning it into an academic publication. The only mistake he made (while at Google; I was really surprised by the on-line crowd that he found itself with after being ejected from his workplace) was not realizing that he's not dealing with a rational audience, in Google or elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has that worked in the past? I've never made a fuckup of nearly the same magnitude, but the times I made a mistake in public apologizing always made things worse.
Has what worked in the past? Admitting you were wrong and apologizing? Sure it's a good way of resolving conflicts if you were actually wrong. People grow and change throughout life, I don't think that being a knucklehead in the past necessarily means you're a knucklehead now.
Apologizing only convinces the people who are called for his head that they were correct. Usually it will lead to further sanctions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between "fewer women wind up having the skills for X" and "women are worse at X".
“Distribution of...abilities” suggests “women are worse.” If the quote merely spoke of skills I could see your point, but it speaks of abilities and points to genetics as an root cause.
Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly) ugly but contained a lot of truth. Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech. I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female, yet are…
That's most definitely a cultural thing, and I believe its what diversity programs try to address.
> As far as his "conservative white male" discrimination claims, I've seen that too. My boss specifically requested candidates that are not middle-aged white males. But it's nowhere near the same level of discrimination that people of color or women have endured for decades. Perhaps the reason people don't feel sorry for conservative white males is that if they are rejected by one company they can keep trying and will find an "old school" company that will hire them. We have not had that luxury, for blacks and women it was 100 nos for every 1 yes. It's not that way for white guys, sorry.
I get that, but I think your boss was still wrong to think and phrase of it that way. No one should be disqualified simply because of their race or age. Give more points to minorities? Yes definitely. But reducing points because you're of a certain race and age just sounds icky, and is probably illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you please provide more detail?
https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/can-you-be... TLDR: yes, and there are certain exceptions, IANAL so not sure where this particular case falls
The whole thing here emphasis mine: No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
It seems that Google has to have a specific policy in place for this law to be triggered, which does not seem to be the claim being made.