81–90 of 1001 posts
Brace in for the brigading. I'm flagging this article because it always results in a bunch of trolling rather than any substantial discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Techcrunch is just setting themselves up for libel
Is it libelous to interpret someones words in a way they don't like?
In this case, TC would argue that they are distilling his memo by using the phrase "biologically less capable of engineering". Personally (and as a former lawyer, but not a libel lawyer), I think this position is not especially strong, since he focused mostly, if not exclusively, on inclination-type evidence. If you're going to give a one-sentence summary of the memo, you probably shouldn't refer to ability instead of inclination.
And given that the person they're talking about just sued Google, I'd say it's unwise to use a characterization like this—even if it is ultimately legally justifiable. Why not say "biologically less suited for engineering", which would encompass the possibility of both ability and desire?
From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.
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…
> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
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…
That is not even close to what he said. Regarding abilities - he didn't say anything about any gender having greater or lesser abilities - he said "different" abilities. He didn't say that biological differences explain the gender representation - he said it may explain the gender representation - which means it also may not. He said that there are differences in the distributions of preferences and abilities of wome…
From the article: > women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of engineering Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.
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.
Brace in for the brigading. I'm flagging this article because it always results in a bunch of trolling rather than any substantial discussion.
So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe ultra-right organizations, trying to sue Google and retire off the proceeds, or leaving tech and becoming a noname blue collar or a freelancer forever hiding his face.
I hope they will settle for an amount sufficient for retirement and the dude's life won't get ruined due to a stupid political game he didn't even realize he was playing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really think the firm is taking an upfront fee or retainer for this? I assume they are expecting a settlement from Google/Alphabet so that the company can put an end to this PR nightmare once and for all, from which they will take a cut.
Google's PR Nightmare? Honest question: Don't you think that the one with the PR nightmare is Damore?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What wording do you suggest they use?
His memo was more along the lines of "women are less represented in tech because the industry does not favor their traits which are possibly a result of biological differences"
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.
In California, workplace discrimination due to politics is illegal [1] In USA, discrimination due to sex is illegal. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...